Page images
PDF
EPUB

QUESTIONS OF ORDER

DECIDED AT THE FIRST SESSION OF THE TWENTY-NINTH CONGRESS.

JOHN W. DAVIS, OF INDIANA, SPEAKER.

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1845.

The resolution (No. 2) for the admission of the State of Texas into the Union being engrossed, was read the third time.

And, after debate,

A motion was made by Mr. Julius Rockwell, that the said resolution be recommitted to the Committee on the Territories, with instructions to add thereto the following:

"Provided, that within the State by this resolution admitted into the Union, slavery or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited; and all the provisions of the said constitution, inconsistent with this proviso, shall be null and void."

Mr. Douglass moved the previous question, which was seconded; and the main question was ordered to be put.

The Speaker decided the main question to be, Shall the said resolution be committed to the Committee on the Territories, with the said instructions?

From this decision Mr. George W. Jones appealed.

A motion was made by Mr. Gordon, at thirty-five minutes past 2 o'clock, that the House do adjourn; which was decided in the negative.

The question was then put, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?

And decided in the affirmative.

A motion was made by Mr. George S. Houston, at forty minutes past 2 o'clock, that the House do adjourn; which was decided in the negative.

Under the foregoing decision, the question recurred, Shall the said resolution be committed to the Committee on the Territories, with the instructions moved by Mr. Rockwell? when A motion was made by Mr. Cullom to reconsider the vote deciding that the decision of the Chair should stand as the judgment of the House.

And the question being put,

Yeas,

It was decided in the affirmative, {Nays,

So the said vote was reconsidered.

[ocr errors][subsumed][merged small]

The question again recurred, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?

[blocks in formation]

So the decision of the Chair was reversed; and it was decided that the motion of Mr. Rockwell was set aside by the previous question.

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 31, 1845.

Mr. Tibbatts, from the Committee on Commerce, reported a bill (No. 18) making appropriations for the improvement of certain harbors and rivers; which was read a first and second time:

when

A motion was made by Mr. Crozier, that the said bill be committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, with instructions to amend the same by inserting therein the following: "for the improvement of the Tennessee river, one hundred thousand dollars.” And, after debate,

The previous question was moved by Mr. Rathbun.

Upon inquiry being made, what would be the effect of the previous question?

The Speaker stated, and so decided, that the instructions moved by Mr. Crozier would be set aside by the previous question.

From that decision Mr. Gentry appealed.

Mr. Tibbatts moved that the said appeal be laid on the table.

And the question being put,

It was decided in the affirmative.

So the decision of the Speaker stood.

[ocr errors]

1324

APPENDIX.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1846.

A quorum of members not being present,

A motion was made by Mr. Cobb, that the House take a recess until half-past 7 o'clock. Mr. Winthrop raised the question of order, that a quorum of members not being present, it was not competent for the Chair to entertain a motion for a recess.

The Speaker decided that, it appearing from the record that there was not a quorum present, no motion was in order except for a call of the House or to adjourn in which decision the House acquiesced.

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1846.

A motion was made by Mr. Charles J. Ingersoll, that the rules of the House be suspended in order to enable him to submit a motion that the 33d rule, in the following words: "No member shall occupy more than one hour in debate on any question in the House or in committee," be suspended for the space of four hours.

Mr. Payne raised the following question of order:

That, inasmuch as the proposition of Mr. Ingersoll involved a change of one of the rules of this House, it could not be made, under the 134th rule, without one day's previous notice.

The Speaker decided that two-thirds of the members present could, at any time, suspend one or all of the rules of the House.

From this decision Mr. Payne appealed.

And the question being put, Shall the decision of the Chair atand as the judgment of the House?

It was decided in the affirmative.

SAME DAY.

"The resolution (No. 5,) "Joint resolution concerning the Oregon Territory," coming up for consideration,

The House proceeded to the consideration of the said resolution; the question being on agreeing to the amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

The previous question was moved by Mr. Price, and seconded; and the main question was ordered and stated, viz: Will the House agree to the said amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union? when

A division of the question was demanded by Mr. Thurman, so as to take the question on each branch of the resolution separately.

The Speaker stated that, in conformity with the usual practice of the House, the amendment was divisible, and was about proceeding to put the question on striking out the original resolution and inserting the first branch of the amendment; when

Mr. Boyd raised the question of order, that, as the said amendment was reported from the Committee of the Whole House as an entire and distinct proposition, it could not be divided. The Speaker decided against the point of order raised by Mr. Boyd.

From this decision Mr. Boyd appealed.

And the question being put, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?

It was decided in the negative.

So the decision of the Chair was reversed.

(See the decision of April 7.)

MONDAY, APRIL 6, 1846.

The Cumberland road bill (H. R. No. 46) being under consideration,

Mr. Wentworth withdrew his motion for the previous question, and claimed the floor.
Mr. Cobb rose, was recognised by the Speaker, and moved the previous question.

Mr. Hamlin moved that there be a call of the House.

Mr. Tibbatts raised the following question of order, to wit:

That Mr. Wentworth, having risen and withdrawn the previous question, held the floor, either for the purpose of offering amendments, or of addressing the House; that he had not surrendered the floor when Mr. Cobb rose and was recognised; and that the floor could not be taken from him, and given to Mr. Cobb; and, therefore, the motion of Mr. Cobb was not in order, and ought not to be entertained.

The Speaker stated that Mr. Wentworth, having the floor, withdrew the previous question, and then turned from the Speaker and walked up the aisle, upon which Mr. Cobb was recog nised as entitled to the floor; and the Speaker therefore decided that Mr. Cobb was entitled to the floor.

From this decision Mr. Joseph J. McDowell 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.

TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1846.

The House resumed the consideration of the bill (No. 46) to provide for the continuation of the Cumberland road through the States of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois.

The question being on the amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union,

Mr. Graham called for a division of the amendment, so as to take the question separately on portions of that part of the amendment proposed to be inserted in lieu of the original bill.

The Speaker decided that, in conformity with the decision of the House, made on the ninth day of February last, wherein the decision of the Speaker, in a similar case, that the part to be inserted was divisible, was overruled and reversed by the House, the division asked for by Mr. Graham was not in order.

From this decision Mr. Graham appealed.

And the question was stated, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House? when

Mr. Garrett Davis moved that the appeal be laid upon the table: which motion was agreed to. And the decision of the Speaker stood as the judgment of the House.

On the same day, the same bill being under consideration,

The question recurred on agreeing to the said amendment: when

Mr. Tibbatts moved that the said bill and amendment be recommitted to the Committee on Roads and Canals, with instructions to strike out so much of the said amendment as proposes to distribute the public lands to the States of this Union.

The Speaker decided that, at this stage of the proceedings, the previous question having been moved and seconded, and the main question ordered to be put, the motion to recommit was not in order.

THURSDAY, APRIL 9, 1846.

Mr. Bayly (by leave) offered the following resolution, viz:

Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to transmit to this House, if not inconsistent with the public interest, copies of the correspondence, in the year 1841, between the President of the United States and the governor of New York, relative to the appearance of Joshua A. Spencer, esq., district attorney of the United States for the western district of New York, in the courts of the State of New York, as counsel for Alexander McLeod.

The said resolution was read: when

Mr. Ashmun moved to amend the same by adding thereto the following as a separate resolu-. tion :

Resolved, That the Secretary of State be directed to inform this House whether any person has been permitted to violate the secrecy of the Department of State, by examination of the confidential and private papers or documents which are placed in his keeping; and if so, when said violation took place, and by whom it was committed; or whether he has communicated to any person any parts of the contents of such papers or documents which are thus confidentially in his keeping; and if so, to whom, and when said communication was made.

The Speaker (Mr. Hopkins occupying the chair as Speaker pro tem.) decided that, under the 54th rule of the House, the said amendment was not in order, being "a proposition on a subject different from that under consideration."

From this decision Mr. Ashmun appealed: and,

On motion of Mr. Cobb, the appeal was laid upon the table-yeas 105, nays 62.

FRIDAY, APRIL 10, 1846.

A motion was made by Mr. Dixon, to reconsider the vote by which the House yesterday agreed to the resolutions offered by Mr. Charles J. Ingersoll, calling upon the President of the United States for an account of all payments made on President's certificates from the fund appropriated by law, through the agency of the State Department, for the contingent expenses of foreign intercourse, &c.

Mr. McClelland submitted as a question of order, that the said resolution having been delivered to the President of the United States, a motion to reconsider was not now in order.

The Speaker stated, that it being expressly provided by the 55th rule of the House, that "when a motion has been once made, and carried in the affirmative or negative, it shall be in order for any member of the majority to move for a reconsideration thereof on the same or the succeeding day," this motion was in order, and he so decided.

From this decision Mr. McClelland appealed.

And the question was put, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House? And decided in the affirmative..

So the motion of Mr. Dixon was decided to be in order.

TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 1846.

Mr. McKay, from the Committee of Ways and Means, reported a bill (No. 384) reducing the duty on imports, and for other purposes: which was read a first time.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. Andrew Stewart objected to the second reading of the said bill; and "opposition" being made to the bill on its first reading, the question arose, under the 115th rule of the House, "Shall the bill be rejected?"

Mr. Andrew Stewart having risen to debate this question,

The Speaker decided that, under the 129th rule of the House, this question was not now debatable; which rule is in the words following: "No motion or proposition for a tax or charge upon the people shall be discussed the day in which it is made or offered; and every such proposition shall receive its first discussion in a Committee of the Whole House."

In this decision the House acquiesced.

MONDAY, APRIL 20, 1846.

The House proceeded again to consider the amendments pending to the resolution (No. 5) relative to Oregon, and the disagreeing votes of the two houses thereupon.

A motion was made by Mr. Owen, that a conference be asked on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on the amendments pending to the said resolution, and that managers on the part of this House be appointed to conduct the said conference.

Mr. Roberts moved that the House insist upon its amendment to the amendment of the Senate to the said joint resolution, (No. 5.)

Mr. Gentry moved that the House recede from its amendment to the said amendment of the Senate.

The Speaker decided that the motion to recede was first in order, and took precedence of the motion for the appointment of a committee of conference, and of the motion to insist.

From this decision Mr. Seaborn Jones appealed.

And the question was stated, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House? when

Mr. Rathbun moved the previous question, which was seconded; and the main question was ordered and put, viz: Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House? And decided in the affirmative.

So the decision of the Chair was sustained.

MONDAY, APRIL 27, 1846.

The House having granted Mr. Ashmun leave to reply to an explanation just made by Mr. Charles J. Ingersoll,

Mr. Ashmun proceeded with his reply, and was remarking upon the course of Mr. Ingersoll when he held the office of district attorney of the United States in the eastern district of Pennsylvania.

Mr. Hopkins raised the question of order, that it was not in order, under the leave granted to Mr. Ashmun, to go into a history of the course of Mr. Ingersoll while district attorney; that having no relation to the remarks of Mr. Ingersoll, to which he was replying.

The Speaker decided Mr. Ashmun to be in order, there being no particular subject under debate; and therefore the question of irrelevancy of remarks could not apply.

From this decision Mr. Hopkins appealed.

And the question was stated, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House? when

Mr. Tibbatts moved that the appeal be laid upon the table.

And the question being put,

Yeas,

It was decided in the affirmative, Nays,

THE SAME DAY.

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

A resolution offered by Mr. Schenck, as to how the "seal of confidence" became broken in relation to the expenditure of the secret service fund, and how Mr. C. J. Ingersoll obtained information in relation thereto, being under consideration, and a vote having been taken on laying the same upon the table:

Mr. Reuben Chapman raised the question of order, that a vote having been taken upon laying the resolution on the table, it was not now in order for the mover to modify it.

The Speaker decided that, in conformity to the invariable custom of the House, the modification was in order.

From this decision Mr. Chapman appealed.

And the question was stated, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House? when

Mr. Chapman withdrew the said appeal.

THURSDAY, MAY 11, 1846.

The message from the President of the United States in relation to Mexico having been read, A motion was made by Mr. Haralson, that the message and documents accompanying the same

be laid upon the table and be printed; and on this motion Mr. Haralson moved the previous question.

Mr. Schenck raised the question of order, that a motion to lay the message and documents upon the table was not in order until the reading of all the papers was completed.

The Speaker decided that the motion of Mr. Haralson was in order.

From this decision Mr. Schenck 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.

THE SAME DAY.

The bill (H. R. No. 145) to authorize the President of the United States, under certain contingencies therein named, to accept the services of volunteers, and for other purposes, (to prosecute the war against Mexico,) being upon its passage,

Mr. Garrett Davis asked to be excused from voting, and proceeded to give his reasons. was stating his objections to the preamble of the bill, when

He

Mr. Douglass raised the question of order, that objections to the preamble of the bill were not reasons why Mr. Davis should be excused from voting, but why he should vote against the bill. The Speaker decided that the reasons given were such as had heretofore been permitted, and he therefore decided that Mr. Davis was in order.

From this decision Mr. Brinkerhoff appealed.

And the question being put, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

Mr. Daniel moved that the House proceed to the consideration of private bills.

112

72

Mr. Haralson moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

This being a day set apart by the rules of the House for the consideration of private business, Mr. Daniel's motion was first in order.

[blocks in formation]

The bill H. R. No. 50, (general appropriation bill) being under consideration,

Mr. George W. Jones moved to amend the said bill by striking out the words "and meteorologist" in the 180th line, and the word "three" in the 181st line, and inserting, in lieu of the word three, the word "one."

Mr. Jones moved the previous question.

Mr. Winthrop raised the question of order, that a motion to amend the original bill is not in order until the amendments reported from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of Union shall have been acted on.

The Speaker decided that the proposition to amend the original bill was in order, but that the question must be first taken on the amendments of the committee, and then on the amendment proposed to the original bill.

From this decision Mr. McHenry 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.

So the decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the House.

TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 1846.

Mr. Seaborn Jones moved that when the House adjourns to-day, it adjourn to meet at 10 o'clock to-morrow morning.

Mr. J. R. Ingersoll raised the question of order, that as the hour for the meeting of the House was fixed by a standing order of the House, it was not in order to entertain a motion to change the same at any time except when resolutions were in order.

The Speaker stated, that although the 47th rule of the House provided that “a motion to fix the day to which the House shall adjourn shall be always in order," it did not follow that a motion to change the hour already fixed by the House was always in order; and he therefore sustained the question of order raised by Mr. Ingersoll, and decided that the motion of Mr. Jones was not in order.

From this decision 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.

So the motion of Mr. Jones was not entertained.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »