2. NOT GENERAL LEGISLATION AND GERMANE.

47th Cong., 1st sess.; J., pp. 928, 929.]

JULY 6, 1882.

The Senate, by a vote of 33 yeas to 18 nays, decided that the amendment relating to the Hennepin Canal to the river and harbor bill was not general legislation upon a general appropriation bill within the meaning of Rule 29, and by a vote of 33 to 17 the above amendment was decided to be relevant. (See Cong. Record, pp. 5676– 5686.)

55th Cong., 3d sess.; J., p. 149.] On motion by Mr. Frye,

FEBRUARY 24, 1899.

The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill (H. R. 11795) “making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes;" and the reported amendments having been further agreed to in part and in part amended, and as amended agreed to, and the bill further amended on the motion of Mr. Frye, from the Committee on Com

merce.

On the question to agree to the following reported amendment, viz: On page 91, beginning with line 21, insert the following:

Sec. 3. That the President of the United States is hereby authorized to acquire, for and in the behalf of the United States, such portion of territory now belonging to Costa Rica and Nicaragua, or such rights, easements, or privileges therein or connected therewith as may be desirable and necessary to excavate, construct, control, and defend a canal of such depth and capacity as will be sufficient for the movement of ships of the greatest tonnage and draft now in use, from a point near Greytown on the Caribbean Sea, by way of Lake Nicaragua, to Brito on the Pacific Ocean; and such sum as may be necessary to make such purchase is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.

Mr. Rawlins raised a question of order, viz, that the amendment proposed general legislation to a general appropriation bill and was therefore not in order under the third clause of Rule 16 of the Senate.

The Vice President (Mr. Hobart) submitted the question to the Senate, Is the amendment in order?

After debate,

It was determined in the affirmative yeas 51, nays 7.

So it was decided the amendment was in order.

Mr. Vest raised a question of order, viz, that the amendment was not germane or relevant to the subject matter of a bill making appropriations for rivers and harbors, and was therefore not in order under the third clause of Rule 16.

The Vice President submitted the question to the Senate, Is the amendment in order?

It was determined in the affirmative-yeas 48, nays 12

So it was decided that the amendment was germane and in order. (See Cong. Record, pp. 2286-2291.)

J., pp. 214, 215.]

FEBRUARY 24, 1913.

On motion by Mr. Burton, to further amend the bill by inserting, on page 5, after line 18, the following:

The assent of Congress is hereby given to the Connecticut River Company, a corporation organized and doing business under the laws of the State of Connecticut, to relocate its "Enfield Dam," so called, and to construct, maintain, and operate such relocated dam (which, if located opposite Kings Island, in said river, shall extend across both branches of the river), together with works appurtenant and necessary thereto, across the Connecticut River at any point below a line crossing both branches of the river and Kings Island midway between the northerly and southerly ends of said island: Provided, That, except as may be otherwise specified in this act, the location, construction, maintenance, and operation of

the structures herein authorized, and the exercise of the privileges hereby granted, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the act approved June twenty-third, nineteen hundred and ten, entitled "An act to amend an act entitled 'An act to regulate the construction of dams across navigable waters,' approved June twenty-third, nineteen hundred and six": And provided further, That the time for completing said dam and appurtenances may be extended by the Secretary of War, etc.

Mr. Bankhead raised a question of order, viz, that the amendment proposes general legislation to an appropriation bill, and is therefore not in order under the rule. The President pro tempore (Mr. Gallinger) overruled the point of order.

Pending debate,

Mr. Brandegee raised a question of order, viz, that the amendment proposed is not germane.

The President pro tempore (Mr. Gallinger) submitted the question to the Senate, Is the amendment germane?

Yeas 38, nays 29.

So the Senate decided the amendment was germane. (See Cong. Record, pp. 37723776.)

3. RELEVANT.

49th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 1055.]

JULY 6, 1886.

The Senate, by a vote of yeas 31, nays 9, decided that an amendment to the river and harbor appropriation bill for the purchase of the Sturgeon Bay and Lake Michigan Ship Canal and harbor of refuge, etc., was germane and relevant to the subject matter of the bill. (See Cong. Record, pp. 6555, 6557.)

MARCH 3, 1851.

4. SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS A REJECTED AMENDMENT. 31st Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 244.] Mr. Bradbury offered an amendment providing that the appropriations in this bill contained shall take effect upon and authorize the expenditure of only such surplus or excess as shall remain in the Treasury of the United States after deducting from the public revenues the sums necessary to meet the appropriations that have been made or shall be made by Congress to execute existing laws and liquidate private claims.

A question of order being raised, that it was substantially the same as the amendment which had been rejected,

The President pro tempore (William R. King) submitted the question to the Senate, Is the amendment in order?

It was decided in the affirmative yeas 25, nays 24. (See Cong. Globe Appendix, pp. 359, 360.)

NOT IN ORDER.

5. GENERAL LEGISLATION.

51st Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 469.]

AUGUST 16, 1890.

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Manderson) decided that the amendment to the river and harbor bill, and thereafter no Government pier or dock shall be leased to or permitted to be used by private persons otherwise than in common by all, under such regulations as the Secretary of War may prescribe, was general legislation to a general appropriation bill. (See Cong. Record, p. 8684.)

62d Cong., 3d sess.; J., pp. 213, 214.]

FEBRUARY 24, 1913.

The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the consideration of the bill (H. R. 28180) making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes.

The question being on the amendment proposed by Mr. Newlands, viz: Insert on page 65, after line 10, the following:

Sec. 3. That for the regulation and control of the flow of navigable rivers in aid of interstate commerce, and as a means to that end for the storage of flood waters in the watershed of

such navigable rivers, including the beneficial use and control of such flood waters, in the maintenance so far as practicable of a standard flow for navigation, the reclamation of arid and swamp lands, and the development of water power; and for the protection of watersheds from denudation, erosion, and from forest fires, and for the cooperation of Government services and bureaus with each other and with States, municipalities, and other local agencies, etc. After debate,

Mr. Lodge raised a question of order, viz, that the amendment proposes general legislation to an appropriation bill, and is therefore not in order under the rule. The President pro tempore (Mr. Gallinger) sustained the point of order. (See Cong. Record, pp. 3636, 3762, 3763.) FEBRUARY 24,

1913. The PRESIDENt pro tempore (Mr. Gallinger). The amendment proposed by the Senator from Nevada will be stated.

The SECRETARY. It is proposed to insert the following:

A commission, to be known as the River Regulation Commission, consisting of the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, two Members of the Senate, to be selected by the President of the Senate, and two Members of the House of Representatives, to be selected by the Speaker, is hereby created and authorized to bring into coordination and cooperation with the Corps of Engineers of the Army the other scientific or constructive services of the United States that relate to the study, development, and control of waterways and water resources and subjects related thereto, and to the development and regulation of interstate and foreign commerce, with a view to uniting such services through a board or boards in investigating questions relating to the development, improvement, regulation, and control of navigation as a part of interstate and foreign commerce, including therein the related questions of irrigation, forestry, swamp-land reclamation, clarification of streams, regulation of flow, control of floods, utilization of water power, prevention of soil waste, cooperation of railways and waterways, and promotion of transfer facilities and sites, and in forming comprehensive plans for the development of the waterways and water resources of the country for every useful purpose by cooperation between the United States and the several States, municipalities, communities, corporations, and individuals within the jurisdiction, powers, and rights of each, respectively, and with a view to assigning to the United States such portion of such development, promotion, egulation, and control as can be properly undertaken by the United States by virtue of its power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce and by reason of its proprietary interest in the public domain, and to the States, municipalities, communities, corporations, and individuals such portion as properly belongs to their jurisdiction, rights, and interests, and with a view to properly apportioning costs and benefits, and with a view to so uniting the plans and works of the United States within its jurisdiction, and of the States and municipalities, respectively, within their jurisdictions, and of corporations, communities, and individuals, within their respective powers and rights, as to secure the highest development and utilization of the waterways and water resources of the United States; and such river regulation commission is authorized to appoint as members of such board or boards such engineers, transportation experts, experts in water development, and constructors of eminence as it may deem advisable to employ in connection with such plans. Such plans shall involve the expenditure by the United States of $50,000,000 annually, commencing on the completion of the Panama Canal and extending over a period of ten years. And for the expenses of such organization, investigation, and plans the sum of $500,000 is hereby appropriated.

Mr. LIPPITT. I make the point of order that the amendment is general legislation and not pertinent to the pending bill.

The PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE (Mr. Gallinger). The Chair is constrained to sustain the point of order. (See Cong. Record, pp. 3787, 3788.)

Afterwards the point of order was withdrawn.

J., p. 216.]

FEBRUARY 24, 1913.

On motion by Mr. Owen to further amend the bill by adding at the end thereof the following:

That at any time prior to ten days after the next ensuing regular session of Congress the President of the United States shall have the right of veto as to any item in this act by returning the same to Congress with his disapproval.

Mr. Nelson raised a question of order, viz, that the amendment proposes general legislation to an appropriation bill and is therefore not in order under the rule. The President pro tempore (Mr. Gallinger) sustained the point of order.

From the decision of the Chair Mr. Owen appealed to the Senate.

The President pro tempore (Mr. Gallinger) stated the question to be, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate?

Yeas, 64, Nays, 5.

So it was decided that the decision of the Chair should stand as the judgment of Senate. (See Cong. Record, pp. 3788, 3789.)

6. IRRELEVANT.

35th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 534.]

MAY 27, 1858.

The Senate had under consideration as in Committee of the Whole the bill (S. 343) "making appropriations for repairing the piers at the harbor of Sheboygan, Wisconsin," and Mr. Pugh offered an amendment proposing appropriations for twenty other harbors, and on motion by Mr. Davis, to amend the amendment proposed by Mr. Pugh, by inserting at the end thereof:

That all articles now on the free list be classed among the unenumerated articles, and be charged with a duty of twenty per centum ad valorem on all importations made after the first day of July, eighteen hundred and fifty-eight.

Mr. Wilson made a question of order, whether the amendment proposed by Mr. Davis was in order.

The Vice President (Mr. Breckinridge) in pursuance of the sixth rule, asked the sense of the Senate, whether the amendment was in order; and it was decided not to be in order. (See Cong. Globe, p. 2424; Cong. Globe Appendix, pp. 465, 472–476.) 7. NOT REPORTED BY A STANDING COMMITTEE AND NOT ESTIMATED FOR.

62d Cong., 3d sess.]

FEBRUARY 21, 22, 1913.

The SECRETARY. On page 52, after the word "navigation," in line 4, it is proposed to insert the following:

Provided further, That of the amount herein appropriated, $250,000, or such sum as may be necessary, shall be expended for revetting, leveeing, and otherwise improving the left bank of said river at and near Memphis, Tennessee, for the purpose of preventing damage by floods and promoting the interest of navigation.

Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, the point of order made against the amendment is that it is not in accordance with the report of a standing committee and that it is covered by no estimate.

Mr. NELSON. I am not clear about the point of order; and, so far as I am concerned, I shall be satisfied with whatever the Chair may deem to be the proper ruling. The PRESIDENT pro tempore (Mr. Gallinger). As the Chair understands the matter, this is a diversion of $250,000 from the $6,000,000 appropriated in the bill. Mr. NELSON. Yes; and it is not a committee amendment.

The PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE (Mr. Gallinger). It appears that the $6,000,000 are to be expended under the direction of the Secretary of War in accordance with the plans, specifications, and recommendations of the Mississippi River Commission, as approved by the Chief of Engineers. Do those plans, specifications, and recommendations cover the proposed improvement contemplated in the amendment?

Mr. NELSON. That I am not able to say. I do not know whether they do or not. Mr. PERCY. They do not, Mr. President.

The PRESIDENt pro tempore (Mr. Gallinger). The Senator from Mississippi states that they do not. Under those circumstances the Chair is constrained to sustain the point of order. (See Cong. Record, pp. 3570, 3571.)

An amendment of a similar character was ruled out of order February 22, 1913. (pp. 3635, 3636 of the Cong. Record.)

15. SUNDRY CIVIL.

IN ORDER

1. Not general legislation.

2. To carry out existing law.

3. Not estimated for, nor proposed by a standing or select committee, and not general legislation.

4. Under existing law and estimate of the department, and not general legislation.

5. Although reported by standing committee, claimed not in order because it had not been referred to a committee.

6. Provision for raising revenue and not to be offered in the Senate. 7. Recommended by the department, and by a committee.

8. Not private claims.

9. Private claims, but reported by a committee.

NOT IN ORDER

10. General legislation.

11. Not in pursuance of an estimate.

12. Not estimated for, nor recommended by a committee, nor to carry out a resolution of the Senate.

13. Not relevant.

14. Private claim, not arising under a treaty.

15. Because a measure relating to the revenue.

16. Not estimated for.

17. Not reported from a committee.

18. Not reported by a committee, nor estimated for.

19. Private claims, although some were reported by committees.

IN ORDER.

1. NOT GENERAL LEGISLATION.

45th Cong., 3d sess.; J., p. 416.]

FEBRUARY 28, 1879.

The Senate having under consideration the bill (H. R. 6471) “making appropriation for sundry civil expenses of the Government," etc., on the question to agree to the reported amendment (to refund to the city of Baltimore certain moneys), Mr. Windom raised a question of order, viz, that the subject of the amendment was to provide for a private claim and was not in order under the thirtieth rule.

Question submitted to the Senate: "Is the amendment in order under the thirtieth rule?" It was determined in the affirmative; yeas 37, nays 15.

Mr. Edmunds then raised a question of order that the amendment proposed general legislation to a general appropriation bill and was not in order under the first clause of the twenty-ninth rule.

Question submitted to the Senate: "Is the amendment in order under the first clause of the twenty-ninth rule?" It was determined in the affirmative. (See Cong. Record, pp. 2064, 2065.)