Mr. GALLINGER and Mr. LODGE. And not estimated for.

Acting upon that statement of fact, the (See Cong. Record, p. 8049.)

Mr. WARREN. It is not estimated for, of course. The PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE (Mr. Bacon). Chair will have to sustain the point of order. Several amendments of a similar character were ruled out of order for the same reasons and two ruled in order on pages 8056, 8059 and 8060 of Congressional Record. (See Cong. Record, pp. 8049, 8050, 8054, 8055, June 14, 1912, p. 8131.)

11. NOT REPORTED BY A COMMITTEE AND NOT ESTIMATED FOR. 62d Cong., 3d sess.] JANUARY 15, 1913.

The bill (H. R. 26680), making appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses, etc., being under consideration,

Mr. Swanson proposed an amendment:

On page 29, line 17, after the word "watchmen," it is proposed to strike out "$720” and insert in lieu thereof $900.

Mr. CLARKE of Arkansas. I am opposed to these increases without a systematic investigation by some responsible committee of the Senate. I think the amendment is subject to a point of order. It has not been reported from a committee and it is not estimated for. So I make the point of order against its further consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lodge). The amendment is clearly obnoxious to the rule. The Chair sutains the point of order. (See Cong. Record, pp. 1543, 1544.) 62d Cong., 3d sess.] JANUARY 15, 1913.

Mr. OWEN. On page 26, after line 6, I move to insert:

For legislative reference bureau, under the direction of the Librarian of Congress, $10,000.

Mr. WARREN. I make a point of order against the amendment. It is not estimated for and is not recommended by any committee.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Shively). The point of order is sustained. (See Cong. Record, p. 1564.)

JANUARY 15, 1913.

Mr. MARTINE of New Jersey. I desire to present an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Shively). The amendment will be read.

The SECRETARY. Under the head of "Legislative," insert:

That the salary of all employees of the United States Senate who are receiving less than $1,800 are hereby increased twenty-five per centum. In no case, however, shall the salary 80 increased exceed $1,800.

*

Mr. CLARKE of Arkansas. Mr. President, I think this is an inopportune time for increasing the salaries, and we should not increase a salary until we know that there is a special reason for so doing. The same reason which prompted me to object to the amendment offered by the Senator from Virginia prompts me to raise the point of order against this amendment. It may be that increases will hereafter be made. It may be that an equalization of salaries will take place. I raise the point of order that this item has not been estimated for and is not otherwise within our rule.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Shively). A point of order is made by the Senator from Arkansas. The Chair must sustain the point of order. (See Cong. Record, p. 1564.) JANUARY 16, 1913.

Mr. LA. FOLLETTE. I offer the amendment which I send to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fletcher). The amendment proposed by the Senator from Wisconsin will be stated.

The SECRETARY. It is proposed to insert:

That the salaries of the members of the police force employed in the Capitol and in the Senate and House Office Buildings be made equal to the salaries paid to the elevator conductors employed in the said buildings, to wit, $1,200 per annum.

Mr. CLARKE of Arkansas. Mr. President, I think I shall make the point of order against that amendment for the same reason that I indicated yesterday. If it is a fact that there are gross and palpable inequalities in the pay that is being given to the different employees of the Senate, there ought to be some comprehensive and thorough examination into that matter and the inequalities developed. I am inclined to believe that some salaries will be found to be above the natural average, but by taking off from the employees who are overpaid and giving to those who are underpaid we may bring about an equilibrium that will come nearer doing justice than legislating in this blind way. I raise the point of order against the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fletcher). The point of order is sustained. (See Cong. Record, p. 1613.)

12. CHANGING EXISTING LAW, NOT REPORTED BY A COMMITTEE AND NOT RELEVANT.

46th Cong., 1st sess.; J., pp. 151-153.]

MAY 18-19, 1879.

The legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation bill being under consideration, Mr. Plumb moved the following amendment:

Provided, That the claims for arrears of pensions shall be settled and determined as rapidly as possible; and as fast as determined, and as often as once in thirty days, the Secretary of the Interior shall make requisition upon the Secretary of the Treasury for funds necessary to pay all claims then settled; and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treas ury to promptly meet such requisitions by placing to the credit of the Commissioner of Pensions the amount of the same, out of any money which may be in the Treasury not necessary to meet payments of interest on the public debt.

Mr. Beck raised a question of order, viz, that the amendment changed existing law, had not been moved by direction of a standing or select committee of the Senate, and not being relevant to the item to which it is moved as an amendment, was not in order.

The President pro tempore (Mr. Thurman) submitted the question to the Senate: Is the amendment in order under Rules 27 and 29?

It was determined in the negative. (See Cong. Rec., pp. 1429, 1430, 1450.)

13. THAT IT CHANGED EXISTING LAW AND WAS NOT ESTIMATED FOR BY THE DEPARTMENT.

58th Cong., 3d sess.; J., pp. 74, 77.]

JANUARY 12-13, 1905.

On the question to concur in the amendment made in Committee of the Whole on page 33, line 23, under the head of "Civil Service Commission," by striking out "three thousand five hundred" and inserting four thousand;

Mr. Berry raised a question of order, viz: That the amendment changed existing law and was not estimated for by the head of some one of the departments, and was therefore not in order under Rule 16.

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Perkins) submitted the question to the Senate, Is the point of order well taken?

No quorum voting; adjourned.

[On the next day—]

The question being on the point of order raised by Mr. Berry to the amendment made in the Committee of the whole on page 33, line 23, under the heading "Civil Service Commission," by striking out "three thousand five hundred" and inserting four thousand, viz, that the amendment changed existing law and was not estimated for by the head of some one of the departments and was therefore not in order under Rule 16.

The yeas and nays having been heretofore ordered.

By unanimous consent, the order for the yeas and nays was rescinded. The point of order was then sustained by the Presiding Officer (Mr. Perkins) and the amendment was ruled out of order. (See Cong. Record, pp. 752-754, 781.)

14. PRIVATE CLAIMS.

34th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 562.]

AUGUST 11, 1856.

An amendment proposing the insertion of a private claim in settling the accounts of William H. Richardson, late marshal, was decided not in order under the thirtieth rule, by President pro tempore, Mr. Bright. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 2030, 2031.) 34th Cong., 3d sess.; J., p. 287.] FEBRUARY 28, 1857.

An amendment by Mr. Weller changing a total in the amount for salaries of district judges, etc., and providing that $5,000 of that amount shall be paid to the judge of the northern district of California for services rendered in examining and deciding land cases under the act approved March third, eighteen hundred and fifty-one, was objected to by Mr. Hunter as contravening the provisions of Rule 30, being a private claim.

The question was submitted to the Senate and the amendment was declared not to be in order. (See Cong. Globe, p. 1031.)

15. PRIVATE CLAIMS NOT REPORTED BY A COMMITTEE. 34th Cong., 3d sess.; pp. 296, 297.]

MARCH 2, 1857.

Mr. Bell, of Tennessee, proposed an amendment in the following words: That the sum of $7,000 be paid to the district judge of the northern district of California for compensation for his services in reviewing the decisions of the commission for the adjudication of land titles in California.

Mr. Biggs raised the question of order that it is a private claim and not reported by a committee; and

The President pro tempore (Mr. Mason) decided that the amendment was not in order.

From this decision Mr. Bell appealed and the Senate sustained the Chair. No vote was taken by yeas and nays. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 1042–1044.)

34th Cong., 3d sess.; J., p. 297.]

MARCH 2, 1857.

Mr. Weller proposed an amendment to increase the salary of the judge of the southern district of California.

Mr. Adams raised the question of order that it increased the appropriation.

The President pro tempore (Mr. Mason) decided the amendment was not in order, although reported by Committee on the Judiciary, but not by a Member; the Chair stating no one but a Member could report the amendment "by direction of the committee." (See Cong. Globe, p. 1044.)

35th Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 356.]

FEBRUARY 22, 1859.

An amendment by Mr. King, providing that any sufficient surplus in the funds applicable for incidental and contingent expenses of the assay office at New York might be applied to the alteration of the assay office, the purchase of machinery and implements for executing coinage, etc., was declared by Mr. Iverson, in the chair, not to be in order, because it must be reported by a standing committee, and is an additional appropriation. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 1208–1210.)

36th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 650.]

JUNE 13, 1860.

On motion by Mr. Bayard, from Committee on the Judiciary, to amend the bill by inserting the following:

And the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to pay, out of any money not otherwise appropriated, such amount as may by him be regarded as reasonable and just for the rent of the rooms occupied by the United States courts at Los Angeles, California, from the twenty-seventh October, eighteen hundred and fifty-four, to the fifth August, eighteen hundred and fifty-six.

A question of order was raised by Mr. Hunter whether the amendment was in order under the thirtieth rule, being a private claim; and

24143°-S. Doc. 1123, 62–3– -9

The President (Mr. Bright) decided that the amendment was not in order for that reason. (See Cong. Globe, p. 2933.)

36th Cong., 1st sess.; pp. 662, 663.]

JUNE 14, 1860. On motion by Mr. Simmons, from the Committee on Claims, to amend the bill by inserting:

SEC.

And be it further enacted, That to provide for the faithful execution of the fourth article of the treaty with Great Britain of the ninth of August, eighteen hundred and fortytwo, and to secure the releases mentioned in said treaty, the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Catharine C. Ward, of Roxbury, Massachusetts, and Laura A. Stebbins, of Bangor, Maine, each the sum of $3,353; and to James A. Drew, of Chelsea, Massachusetts, and Rufus Mansur, of Houlton, Maine, each the sum of $6,737, and others, etc.

A question of order was raised by Mr. Bragg whether the amendment was in order under the thirtieth rule and to carry out an existing law or treaty.

The President (Mr. Foot in the chair) submitted the question to the decision of the Senate: Is the amendment in order under the thirtieth rule? It was determined in the negative-yeas 22, nays 26. (See Cong Globe, pp. 2969, 2970, 2979.)

10. MILITARY ACADEMY.

IN ORDER

1. Germane, and in pursuance of an act of Congress and estimate
of the department.

NOT IN ORDER—

2. General legislation.

3. Not germane.

IN ORDER.

1. GERMANE, AND IN PURSUANCE OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS AND ESTIMATE OF THE DEPARTMENT.

36th Cong., 1st sess.; J.,

p. 204.]

MARCH 1, 1860.

On motion by Mr. Wigfall, to amend the bill by adding thereto the following section: SEC. -. And be it further enacted, That the sum of $1,530,318.06 be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the support and maintenance of a regiment of mounted volunteers for the defense of the frontier of Texas, to be raised in pursuance of an act approved April seventh, eighteen hundred and fifty-eight, entitled “An act to provide for the organization of a regiment of mounted volunteers for the defense of the frontier of Texas, and to authorize the President to call into the service of the United States two additional regiments of volunteers.”

A question of order was raised by Mr. Gwin, whether the amendment was in order under the thirtieth rule, not being germane; and

The Vice President (Mr. Breckinridge) decided that the amendment was in order, being in pursuance of law and estimate of the Department. (See Cong. Globe, p. 936.)

NOT IN ORDER.

2. GENERAL LEGISLATION.

58th Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 446.]

APRIL 25-26, 1904.

The reported amendment, on page 30, providing for the reorganization of the Medical Department and the Ordnance Department of the Army, having been ruled out by President pro tempore (Mr. Frye) on a point of order as being general legislation to a general appropriation bill within the meaning of Rule 16. (See Cong. Record, pp. 5523-5525.)

60th Cong., 2d sess.]

MARCH 1, 1909.

The Military Academy bill (H. R. 28059) being under consideration, and the question being on the reported amendment of the committee as amended, page 32 after line 13 insert:

Hereafter whenever any cadet shall have finished three years of his course at the Military Academy, the succeeding appointment may be made from his congressional district, or from the State at large, in accordance with existing law.

Mr. Kean raised a question of order on the amendment, as it increases the number of cadets at West Point by 88, that it was "general legislation."

Mr. Kean withdrew the point of order. Mr. Tillman renewed it.

The Vice President (Mr. Fairbanks) sustained the point of order. (See Cong. Record, pp. 3464-3468.)

A point of order was made by Mr. Dick against the amendment "to reinstate former cadets" as general legislation, which the Vice President (Mr. Fairbanks) sustained. (See Cong. Record, pp. 3466, 3480.)

61st Cong., 3d sess.]

The Military Academy bill being under consideration,

The Secretary resumed and concluded the reading of the bill.

MARCH 2, 1911.

The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). The Secretary will now read the bill for committee amendments, if there be no objection. The Chair hears none.

The first amendment of the Committee on Military Affairs was, under the subhead "Permanent establishment," on page 2, line 5, after the word "cadets," to strike out "three hundred thousand" and insert "three hundred and thirty thousand." The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was, after the amendment just agreed to, to insert: Provided, That whenever any cadetship at the United States Military Academy is available for the appointment of a cadet from any State at large, or from any congressional district or Territory, the President shall appoint a cadet from the United States at large to fill such cadetship unless the proper Senator, Representative, or Delegate in Congress shall nominate an eligible candidate for appointment to such cadetship within six months after having been requested by the War Department to nominate such a candidate: Provided further, That hereafter whenever all vacancies at the Military Academy shall not have been filled as a result of the regular annual entrance examination the superintendent shall fill not to exceed thirty of the remaining unfilled vacancies by admissions from the whole list of alternates, selected in their order of merit established at such entrance examination, preferably from the same State in which the vacancy occurs. The admissions thus made shall be credited to the United States at large and shall not interfere with or affect in any manner whatsoever any appointment authorized by existing law: And provided further, That whenever by the operation of this or any other law the Corps of Cadets exceeds its authorized maximum strength as now provided by law the admission of alternates as herein prescribed shall cease until such time as the Corps of Cadets may be reduced below its present authorized strength.

Mr. NELSON. I make the point of order against that amendment that it is general legislation. I make the point of order that the entire proviso is general legislation. The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). There is no doubt at all in the mind of the Chair about its being general legislation. The point of order is sustained. (See Cong. Record, p. 3873.)

The next amendment was, on page 34, after line 3, to insert:

Hereafter military attachés while serving on duty at embassies abroad shall have the rank of colonel, and while serving on duty at legations abroad shall have the rank of lieutenant colonel: Provided, That all officers serving as military attachés shall continue to receive the same pay and allowances which they receive under existing law, and nothing in this act shall be construed to increase such pay or allowances.