35th Cong.; 2d sess.; J., pp. 251, 252.] FEBRUARY 2, 1859. Mr. Sebastian, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, submitted an amendment authorizing and directing the Secretary of War to settle the claims of citizens of Georgia and Alabama for the losses sustained by them during the Indian disturbances of 1836, 1837, and 1838. Mr. Hunter raised the question that the amendment was not in order, being a private claim and not made under existing law, under the thirtieth rule. The President (Mr. Stuart in the chair) decided that it was not in order. From this decision Mr. Iverson appealed and the Chair was sustained by a vote of 24 yeas to 10 nays. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 736–738.) Several similar amendments, not, however, from a committee, but private claims, were declared not to be in order. Journal, pp. 252, 253. (Same day.) (See Cong. Globe, pp. 738–741.) 36th Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 179.] FEBRUARY 2, 1861. On motion by Mr. Sebastian, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, to amend the bill by inserting at the end thereof the following: For payment to A. J. Campbell, the son of Scott Campbell, now deceased, in full consideration of the money stipulated to be paid and land confirmed to said Scott Campbell in the original draft of the treaty with the Sioux, of the twenty-ninth of September, eighteen hundred and thirty-seven, the payment of which sum was submitted to the Senate by the ninth article of the treaty of June nineteenth, eighteen hundred and fifty-eight, between the United States and the Mendawa, Kanton, and Wahpakoota bands of Sioux Indians, and which sum the Senate were of the opinion should be paid, $10,000. A question of order was raised by Mr. Pearce, whether the amendment was in order under the thirtieth rule, being a private claim; and The President (Mr. Foot in the chair) decided that the amendment was not in order because not within the provisions of any treaty, etc. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 702, 703.) 37th Cong., 2d sess.; J., pp. 479, 480.] MAY 14, 1862. On motion by Mr. Wilson, of Missouri, to amend the bill by inserting at the end thereof the following: To pay the Wyandotts, who have petitioned Congress at its present session for the same, $34,155.58, being the amount due them for moneys discounted on bonds held in trust for them by the United States, and interest, to be paid to the heads of families in proportion to the number of members of each family, respectively. Mr. Fessenden raised a question of order, whether the proposed amendment, the object of which was to provide for a private claim, was in order under the thirtieth rule of the Senate. The President pro tempore (Mr. Foot) submitted the question of order to the decision of the Senate; and The question being put, Is the amendment in order under the rule? The Senate decided that the amendment was not in order. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 2114-2116.) [Same Congress, and date.] On motion by Mr. Nesmith to amend the bill by inserting at the end thereof the following: For the payment in full of outstanding liabilities contracted in Oregon and Washington Territories on account of the Indian Department prior to July first, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, a sum not exceeding $80,000: Provided, That before any payment is made from this appropriation, the superintendent of Indian affairs for Oregon and Washington Territories, and the district attorney of the United States for Oregon, shall convene as a board of commissioners for the examination of said outstanding liabilities at such place or places as a majority of said commissioners shall determine; and after giving due and ample notice, by publications in the newspapers of Oregon and Washington, to claimants, etc. Mr. Fessenden raised a question of order, whether the proposed amendment, the object of which was to provide for a private claim, was in order under the thirtieth rule of the Senate; and The President pro tempore (Mr. Foot) decided that the amendment was not in order under the rule. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 2116-2118.) 37th Cong., 3d sess.; J., pp. 334-338.] FEBRUARY 25, 1863. On motion by Mr. Doolittle, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, to amend the bill by inserting: To enable the Secretary of the Interior to pay for the provisions and seed grain actually furnished to the Indians, in his agency, by M. M. Davis, in Wisconsin, the sum of $994. Upon this amendment Mr. Fessenden raised a question of order, viz, that the object of the amendment being to provide for a private claim, it was not in order under the thirtieth rule. The President pro tempore submitted the question of order to the decision of the Senate; and The Senate decided that the amendment was not in order under the thirtieth rule. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 1279, 1280.) When the bill was reported to the Senate the above amendment was again submitted and ruled out of order, being a private claim, by the President (Mr. Clark), and on an appeal the Chair was sustained. (See Cong. Globe, p. 1288.) 11. PRIVATE CLAIM, NOT ESTIMATED for. 62d Cong., 2d sess.] JULY 3, 1912. The SECRETARY. In the Wisconsin items, on page 69, after line 5, it is proposed to insert: That for the purpose of carrying into effect certain treaty stipulations between the United States and the United Nation of Chippewa, Ottawa, and Pottawatomie Indians, and for the purpose of carrying into effect the act of June twenty-fifth, eighteen hundred and sixtyfour (Thirteenth Statutes at Large, page one hundred and seventy-two), the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed to place upon the books of the Treasury to the credit of that portion of the Wisconsin Band of Pottawatomie Indians now resident in the States of Wisconsin and Michigan the sum of $447,339. Mr. CURTIS. I make a point of order against this amendment that it provides for the payment of a claim and has not been estimated for in the regular way; and that it is not proper that it should be placed upon an appropriation bill under Rule XVI. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gallinger). The point of order is sustained. (See Cong. Record, p. 8606.) 12. NOT ESTIMATED FOR. 62d Cong., 2d sess.] JULY 3, 1912. Mr. Smith, of Arizona, moved to insert on page 17, at the end of line 13: That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to construct suitable steel and concrete wagon bridges, with approaches thereto, across the Gila and San Carlos Rivers on the White Mountain or San Carlos Indian Reservation, in the State of Arizona, for the use and accommodation of the Indians and the general traveling public on the said Indian reservation; that the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to select the most practicable available sites for the said bridges at points on said rivers; that the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to make all necessary regulations to carry out this act, and for the purpose of carrying its provisions into effect there is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the United States Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $100,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary. Mr. CURTIS. I make the point of order against that amendment. It has not been estimated for by the department. Mr. SMITH of Arizona. I recognize that the point of order is good. I know that the measure is favored by the department. While there has been no estimate made, I offered the amendment with the hope that the Senator might be gracious enough to our suffering class to have withheld the point of order and let the amendment go. The PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE (Mr. Bacon). The Senator from Kansas will please state the ground of his point of order. Mr. CURTIS. I make the point of order on the ground that the item was not estimated for by the department. The PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE (Mr. Bacon). The Chair sustains the point of order. (See Cong. Record, p. 8621.) 62d Cong., 3d sess.] FEBRUARY 25, 1918. Two amendments on page 3907 of Congressional Record were decided out of order by the President pro tempore (Mr. Gallinger) because they were not estimated for. 9. LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE, AND JUDICIAL. IN ORDER 1. Not general legislation. 2. Not general legislation and is germane. 3. Not general legislation, and not reported by a committee and not estimated for. 4. Private claims, no additional money to be appropriated. 5. Moved by a standing committee. 6. Private claims, reported by a committee. 7. Private claim, but does not provide for any payment. NOT IN ORDER 8. General legislation. 9. Not having been submitted to the Committee on Appropriations. 10. Not reported by a committee. 11. Not reported by a committee and not estimated for. 12. Changing existing law, not reported by a committee and not relevant. 13. That it changed existing law and was not estimated for by the department. 14. Private claims. 15. Private claims, not reported by a committee. IN ORDER. 1. NOT GENERAL LEGISLATION. 49th Cong., 1st sess.; J., pp. 1034, 1035.] JULY 1, 1886. An amendment to legislative appropriation bill, "in full compensation,' was decided by the Senate (yeas 31, nays 20) not to be general legislation upon a general appropriation bill under Rule 16. (See Cong. Record, p. 6384.) 51st Cong., 1st sess.; J., pp. 382, 384.] JUNE 19-20, 1890. The legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation bill being under consideration, an amendment was proposed, as follows, to strike out and insert: For the Commissioner of the General Land Office, $5,000; One assistant commissioner, to be appointed by the President, etc., and a point of order was raised that it was not in order under clause 3, Rule 16, because it was general legislation on a general appropriation bill (see Cong. Record, p. 6250), which was decided to be in order; yeas 33, nays 14. (See Cong. Record, p. 6290.) 51st Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 182.] FEBRUARY 27, 1891. An amendment was decided in order, as not being general legislation, on the legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation bill (yeas 29, nays 24) "to enable the governor, Territorial secretary," etc., of Utah to make an apportionment of members of the legislative assembly, etc., in said Territory, etc., and debate on amendments to this bill was limited to five minutes, etc. (See Cong. Record, pp. 3418, 3420.) The Presiding Officer (Mr. Harris in the chair) having decided, February 26, 1891, page of Journal 179, that an amendment To enable the governor, Territorial secretary, and the board of commissioners mentioned in section nine of the act approved March twenty-second, eighteen hundred and eighty-two, entitled "An act to amend section fifty-three hundred and fifty of the Revised Statutes of the United States in reference to bigamy and for other purposes," in said Territory of Utah as soon as practicable and upon the basis of the census of said Territory taken in the year eighteen hundred and ninety, to redistrict said Territory and apportion representa- · tives in the same in such manner as to provide, as nearly as the same may be, etc., was general legislation; and Mr. Edmunds having appealed from the decision of the Chair, and by unanimous consent the determination of the question having been reserved until to-day, The Vice President put the question, Is the amendment in order under Rule 16, clause 3, and Yeas 29, nays 24. (See Cong. Record, pp. 3334, 3418–3420.) 60th Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 88.] JANUARY 18, 1909. The legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation bill being under consideration, Mr. Borah made a point of order that the following amendment reported by the committee, Provided, That the salary of the Speaker of the House of Representatives after March third, nineteen hundred and nine, shall be $20,000 per annum, was general legislation. The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Fairbanks). The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Borah] interposes the point of order that the pending amendment contravenes paragraph 3 of Rule XVI. . Mr. WARREN. Does the Senator from Idaho insist upon his point of order? "The Senator from Idaho (Mr. Borah) makes the point of order that the pending amendment contravenes paragraph 3 of Rule XVI, which provides: 'No amendment which proposes general legislation shall be received to any general appropriation bill.' What is general legislation upon a general appropriation bill under Rule XVI has long been a sharply debated question. The rule is an old one. It has been frequently invoked, and the discussion has invariably disclosed the same conflicting views which have been expressed with respect to the point of order now interposed. There is no well-defined uniform line of decisions, either by the Chair or by the Senate, when the question has been submitted by the Chair to its determination or when the question has been brought before it by an appeal from the decision of the Chair. The impression created upon the mind of the present occupant of the chair, after a somewhat careful and thorough examination of the subject, is that the Senate has been largely controlled in its interpretation of the rule for more than a third of a century by a consideration of the public interest involved at the time being, rather than by any regard for its technical meaning or strict application. "Under the well-known rules of the Senate the Senate can express itself upon the question as to whether a proposed amendment is in order by an appeal from the decision of the Chair upon a point of order or when the Chair submits the matter for its determination. "The Chair thinks that under all the circumstances, in view of the wide interest in it, it is fair to all concerned to allow the Senate to pass by a direct vote upon the ques tion raised by the point of order. This has been the course which has been frequently pursued in past years. Therefore the Chair will submit the question to the Senate, Is the amendment in order?" Yeas 36, nays 32; so the Senate decided the amendment to be in order. (See Cong. Record, pp. 1022-1039.) 61st Cong., 2d sess.] MARCH 24, 1910. The bill H. R. 22643, legislative, executive, and judicial, being under consideration, On page 75, after the word "public," at the end of line 2, it is proposed to amend the amendment by inserting "when called for by resolution of the Senate or the House of Representatives or," so as to read: "Provided, That the reports required by section thirty-eight of said act shall only be made public when called for by resolution of the Senate or the House of Representatives or upon the order of the President when he deems it for the public interest, and that the Secretary of the Treasury shall formulate rules and regulations for classifying, indexing, and exhibiting said reports or any information therefrom; which said rules and regulations shall be approved by the President." The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). The question is on the amendment to the amendment. The amendment to the amendment was agreed to. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question recurs on agreeing to the amendment as amended. Mr. PURCELL. Mr. President, I make the point of order on that amendment that it is legislation and changes existing law. The VICE PRESIDENT The Chair will submit the matter to the Senate. Is the provision in order? [Putting the question.] The "ayes" appear to have it. The "ayes" have it, and the amendment is declared to be in order. (See Cong. Record, pp. 3677, 3685.) 61st Cong., 3d sess.; J. p. 102.] On motion by Mr. Warren, JANUARY 26, 1911. The Senate proceeded to consider, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill (H. R. 29360) making appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1912, and for other purposes, and the reported amendments having been agreed to in part, and in part disagreed to, and in part amended, and as amended agreed to; and the bill further amended on the motion of Mr. Warren, from the Committee on Appropriations, the motion of Mr. Flint, the motion of Mr. Bailey, the motion of Mr. Heyburn, the motion of Mr. Overman (for Mr. Tillman), the motion of Mr. Carter, the motion of Mr. Brown, and the motion of Mr. Borah, it was reported to the Senate, and the amendments, except the reported amendment on page 40, line 18, relating to the salary of the Secretary to the President were concurred in. On the question to concur in the following reported amendment, viz: On page 40, line 18, strike out the word "six" and in lieu thereof insert the word ten (relating to compensation of the Secretary to the President). Mr. Davis raised a question of order, viz, that the said amendment proposes general legislation to an appropriation bill in contravention of paragraph 3 of Rule XVI, and therefore is not in order. The Vice President (Mr. Sherman) overruled the point of order. line From the ruling of the Chair relating to the reported amendment on page 40, 18 (compensation of the Secretary to the President), Mr. Davis appealed to the Senate. On motion by Mr. Hale to lay the appeal on the table, It was determined in the affirmative. So the appeal from the decision of the Chair was laid on the table. (See Cong. Record, p. 1479.) |
