tion of Virginia military bounty land warrants;" the engrossed bill having been mislaid since it was received from the Senate. The Senate complied with the request. (32d Cong., 1st sess.; J., pp. 592, 594.)

December 22, 1896, the attention of the House of Representatives was called to the fact that a House bill, returned from the Senate with an amendment and referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, had been lost. A message was sent to the Senate requesting it to furnish the House a copy of its amendment to the bill, "to replace the original copy which has been lost." The request was complied with. (54th Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 37.)

29. MAY BE reported ADVERSELY WITH AMENDMENTS.

60th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 350.]

APRIL 1, 1908.

Mr. Foraker, from the Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. 6206) for the relief of certain former members of the Twenty-fifth Regiment United States Infantry, reported it adversely with amendments.

Ordered, That it be placed on the Calendar. (See Cong. Record, p. 4213.)

30. A QUORUM IS NOT NECESSARY ON VOTE TO MAKE A, A SPECIAL ORDER.

62d Cong., 2d sess.; J., pp. 530, 531.]

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION BILL.

AUGUST 10, 1912.

On motion by Mr. Page that the bill (S. 3) to cooperate with the States in encouraging instruction in agriculture, the trades and industries, and home economics in secondary schools; in maintaining instruction in these vocational subjects in State normal schools; in maintaining extension departments in State colleges of argiculture and mechanic arts; and to appropriate money and regulate its expenditure, be made the special order for Saturday, August 17, 1912, immediately after the routine morning business,

The yeas were 33 and the nays were 13.

The number of Senators voting not constituting a quorum.

Mr. Overman raised a question of order, viz, that a quorum of the Senate not having voted, the motion should be declared having been disagreed to.

The President pro tempore (Mr. Bacon) overruled the point of order. (See Cong. Record, pp. 10646, 10648, 10649.)

31. A, ONCE CARRIED CAN NOT BE QUESTIONED AGAIN AT THE SAME SESSION, BUT MUST STAND AS THE JUDGMENT OF THE HOUSE.

The Senate does not appear to have adopted any rule or made any precedent to show that a bill or joint resolution once carried or rejected can again be introduced during the same Congress unless the substance has been changed. We can only look to the proceedings of the House for precedents on this subject.

In one of the House manuals, Rule 13, adopted June 10, 1790, is as follows:

"13. When a bill or resolution which has been passed in one House shall be rejected in the other, it shall not be brought in during the same session without a notice of 10 days and leave of two-thirds of that House in which it shall be renewed."

In Section XLIII, Reconsideration in Jefferson's Manual, we have: "In Parliament a question once carried can not be questioned again at the same session, but must stand as the judgment of the House. And a bill once rejected, another of the same substance can not be brought in again the same session."

In Hinds' Precedents, section 3384 reads as follows:

Sec. 3384. A bill having been rejected by the House, a similar but not identical bill subject was afterwards held to be in order. On August 17, 1856, Mr. John

on the same

Wheeler, of New York, presented a resolution instructing the Committee on Ways and Means (this committee then reported the appropriation bills) to report a bill for the support of the Army in accordance with the text accompanying the resolution. This new bill was drawn up the same as the Army bill, which had already failed because of differences between the House and Senate concerning a provision relating to the use of troops in Kansas, with the exception that the proviso relating to Kansas was stricken out, and three appropriations were changed as to amounts.

Mr. Benjamin Stanton, of Ohio, made the point of order that two Army appropriation bills had been disposed of this session, one coming over from last session and failing by difference between the Houses, and the other being defeated in the House. The Speaker (Mr. Banks) said: But one bill for the support of the Army has been introduced at this session of Congress. The second bill came over from the last session. It was not introduced at this session of Congress. One bill introduced at this session of Congress has been defeated, but the bill embraced by the resolution before the House differs from that bill in the very material manner of wanting the proviso, which is the subject matter of controversy between the two Houses. The language of the manual read by the gentleman—that a bill once rejected, another of the same substance can not be brought in-refers to the provisions of a bill and not to bills on the same subject. The Chair is of the opinion that the resolution is in order. (34th Cong., 2d sess., Cong. Globe, pp. 55, 81.)

On December 19, 1864 (2d sess., 38th Cong.), Mr. Speaker Colfax held that a resolution which the House had laid on the table could not be again presented unless modified. (See Cong. Globe, p. 66.)

32. A, MAY BE MADE THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS AFTER 2 O'CLOCK P. M. BY A VOTE OF THE SENATE.

62d Cong., 2d sess.]

THE PANAMA CANAL.

JULY 13, 1912.

Mr. BRANDEGEE. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of House bill 21969, known as the Panama Canal bill.

The PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Connecticut. The bill will be stated by its title.

The yeas and nays were taken and resulted as follows: Yeas, 40; nays, 34. So Mr. Brandegee's motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (H. R. 21969) to provide for the opening, maintenance, protection, and operation of the Panama Canal, and the sanitation and government of the Canal Zone, which had been reported from the Committee on Interoceanic Canals with amendments.

Mr. BRANDEGEE. Mr. President, I had intended to ask that the bill be read this afternoon and then laid aside, but I find quite a disposition among Senators to hold an executive session, which is said to be necessary, and therefore I ask unanimous consent that the unfinished business may be temporarily laid aside.

The PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE. The Senator from Connecticut asks unanimous consent that the unfinished business be temporarily laid aside. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and that order is made.

(See Cong. Record, pp. 8989, 8990.)

33. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS.

On February 27, 1833, it was "Ordered, That, in considering the general orders of the day, bills which originate in the Senate be first taken up." The perusal of the Journal shows that this order was not closely adhered to thereafter. (22d Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 216.)

While there is nothing in the Senate rules so stating, when a bill, resolution, petition, or memorial is introduced "by request," these words are entered upon the Journal

and in the Record. The House of Representatives incorporates this provision in one of its rules. (Sec. 4 of Rule XXII.)

There is no check whatever upon the privilege of a Senator to introduce bills. He may introduce one or one thousand, and the number of bills presented in the Senate each Congress is far beyond the ability of the body to consider. There were passed during the first session of the First Congress, which sat in New York from 'March 4 to September 29, 1789, twenty-seven bills and four joint resolutions. During the first, or long, sessions of recent Congresses the number of Senate bills passed has exceeded two thousand per session.

January 5, 1858, the Senate was considering a bill for the relief of Alexander J. Atocha, and Mr. Slidell had just proposed an amendment, when Mr. Hunter submitted a resolution to refer the bill, with all accompanying papers, to the Court of Claims.

A question was raised by Mr. Crittenden whether such a resolution was in order, and the Vice President (Mr. Breckinridge) decided it to be in order; and the resolution was agreed to. (35th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 80.)

NOTE. By clause 3 of Rule XV it is now provided that "Whenever a private bill is under consideration it shall be in order to move, as a substitute for it, a resolution of the Senate referring the case to the Court of Claims, under the provisions of the act approved March 3, 1883."

BILLS -REVENUE.

1. Earlier action concerning.

2. House questions Senate's action regarding.

3. Inconsistent amendments to.

4. House resolves upon its rights over.

5. An amendment to an amendment as a substitute for a, repealing certain sections of the law to promote reciprocal trade relations with the Dominion of Canada, is in order.

6. Substitute amendment to, tabled.

7. Proceeding to consider, on day received. 8. Question of order concerning, debatable. 9. Senate bill to purchase ground held up.

Section 7 of Article I of the Constitution provides that "all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills."

There have been many able discussions and exhaustive reports in both Houses as to the correct interpretation of this clause, and as touching the powers of the Senate to originate or to amend, and especially to amend by a substitute, a bill proposing to raise revenues.

The more important of the reports are the following: Senate Report No. 376, 41st Cong., 3d sess.; Senate Report No. 146, 42d Cong., 2d sess.; House Report No. 147, 46th Cong., 3d sess.

The right of the Senate to originate private pension bills and bills for the payment of claims has never been questioned.

The House of Representatives has always insisted upon the right to originate the great, or general, appropriation bills, and in this claim the Senate has acquiesced, but without yielding the right to originate.

In 1833 the compromise tariff bill was introduced in the Senate by Henry Clay, but as the same bill was passed by the House of Representatives while Mr. Clay's bill was pending in the Senate, the latter was laid on the table and the House bill was passed. When this bill was introduced a point of order was raised against its reception by Mr. Forsyth that it contained a section proposing an increase of duties on certain woolens, and was, therefore, a bill in conflict with the clause of the Constitution above cited. It was introduced

with the section retained and the debate and action upon its reception and passage indicate the opinion of that Senate at least that a bill both to increase and reduce duties could originate in the Senate. Numerous bills have originated in the Senate that subsequently became laws, and covering the period from 1815 to the present time, that give strength to the contention of those who believe the Senate has power to originate revenue measures.

In 1856 the Senate instructed the Committee on Finance to report such of the general appropriation bills as they deemed expedient. The subject was carefully considered at this time and fully debated by Messrs. Sumner, Seward, Hunter, and Toombs. An appropriation bill was reported, passed, and sent to the House. The House ignored it.

In 1871 the House returned to the Senate a bill to repeal the income tax with the respectful suggestion that the Constitution "vests in the House of Representatives the sole power to originate such measures. A conference was had, but no agreement was reached. In 1872 the Senate again sent to the House a money bill as a substitute for a House bill. The House, after an elaborate discussion, laid the substitute on the table.

In 1880 "an act authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase additional lots of ground adjoining the new building for the Bureau of Engraving and Printing," passed by the Senate, was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary in the House. A majority of the committee reported that the Senate had the right to originate such a bill. The report was recommitted by the House.

This subject is discussed in the opinion of the justices of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in response to a question from the legislature. (126 Mass., 557.) The court were of the opinion that the clause of the State constitution confining the origin of "money bills" to the house of representatives did not apply to bills for the appropriation of money.

1. EARLIER ACTION CONCERNING.

21st Cong., 1st sess.; J., pp. 155, 156.]

FEBRUARY 25, 1830.

A bill "to provide for the abolition of unnecessary duties, to relieve the people from sixteen millions of taxes," etc., was read the second time and was being considered in Committee of the Whole, when the Vice President (Mr. Calhoun) expressed a doubt whether it was in order to originate in the Senate a bill containing provisions of the character of those contained in the third section, as follows: "That, from and after the first day of January, in the year eighteen hundred and thirty-two, a duty of thirty-three and one-third per cent on the value shall be levied on all furs and raw hides imported into the United States from countries which shall not have secured the continuance of their free admission by granting equivalent advantages to the like productions of the United States." He submitted the question for the decision of the Senate, when, on motion of Mr. Webster, it was ordered that the bill, "together with the question of order," be laid upon the table.