[Mar. 1, 1880, it was considered by unanimous consent and passed. (J., p. 287.) In the House the bill was referred to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds Mar. 5 (2d sess., 46th Cong., J. of H., p. 690). Mr. Cook, from that committee, reported it Mar. 11, and moved that it be referred to the Committee on Appropriations. After debate, Mr. Atkins raised the point of order that the Senate had no right to originate such a bill and moved to refer the matter to the Committee on the Judiciary for examination and report. This was agreed to. (J. of H., p. 759.)] In the House of Representatives on February 2, 1881, Mr. Knott, as a privileged question, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill of the Senate (S. 1157) authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase additional lots of ground adjoining the new building for the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, with instructions to inquire as to the right of the Senate to originate such a bill, the same being an appropriation bill, submitted a report (No. 147) in writing thereon, together with the views of the minority thereon, and it was ordered to be printed and recommitted to the said committee. (See J. of H., p. 309; also H. of R. Report No. 147, 46th Cong., 3d sess.) This report concludes with the following: "Resolved, That the seventh section of article one of the Constitution, which provides that 'All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives,' confers exclusive power upon the House to originate bills appropriating money from the Public Treasury. "Resolved, That the Senate bill which has been referred to this committee be returned to the Senate of the United States with a copy of these resolutions." BREECH OF ORDER. (See Debate.) BUSINESS. 1. Discussion is not. 2. That debate is not intervening, 3. Debate is intervening, 4. A quorum being present on last roll call, its absence can not immediately be suggested, no, having intervened. 1. DISCUSSION IS NOT. 61st Cong., 3d sess.] Mr. OWEN. I suggest the absence of a quorum. FEBRUARY 27, 1911. The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). The Senator from Oklahoma suggests the absence of a quorum. The Secretary will call the roll. The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). Seventy-two Senators have answered to the roll call. A quorum of the Senate is present. The Senator from South Dakota will proceed. Mr. CRAWFORD resumed his speech. After having spoken about half an hour he yielded to Mr. Owen. Mr. OWEN. I raise the point of order that there is no quorum. Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). The Chair overrules the point of order. Mr. BAILEY. I was just going to suggest that no business has intervened since the last call. Mr. OWEN. I call attention to the precedents in this case. In a similar case the Senate has heretofore held, as will be found in Gilfrey's Precedents, that discussion comprises business. The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). The Senate has repeatedly held that discussion is not business, but the present occupant of the chair, regardless of that rule, at any time when a reasonable length of time has been consumed in discussion and it was reasonably apparent that a quorum was not present, should entertain the demand for a roll call. But where, as in the present case, a roll call has twice been demanded within the last 40 minutes and each time upward of 70 Senators have answered to their names, there having been no intermediate business save discussion, the Chair sustains the point of order made, that a Senator can not raise the point that there is no quorum present. * Mr. BACON. I want to make a remark upon the point of order. I am unwilling that, the ruling of the Chair, which he has just made as to the question of the right to call for a quorum, shall pass with the apparent acquiescence of the Senate. Mr. BEVERIDGE. It did not. Mr. BACON. I shall not now at this late hour of the night endeavor to appeal from the ruling of the Chair, but I am unwilling for it to pass without an expression of my dissent. I do not think there is anything in the rules of the Senate or in the general principles of parliamentary law which will sustain the ruling, with all deference to the Chair. Of course, the Chair will not misunderstand me. The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). In the last Congress it was repeatedly held by the Chair, and the Chair was repeatedly sustained by the Senate, that debate was not intervening business. The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). Does the Senator rise to a point of order? moment. The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Scott] has demanded the regular order, which precludes the Senator from South Dakota yielding, the Chair regrets to say. Mr. SCOTT. I object. I demand the regular order. Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of reading Mr. SCOTT. I object. The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). The Senator from Texas can not do that in the face of the objection of the Senator from West Virginia. The only thing in order is the speech of the Senator from South Dakota. Mr. CULBERSON. I appeal from the decision of the Chair. The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). The Chair has made no decision. Mr. CULBERSON. The Chair has ruled that there was no intervening business, although half an hour had elapsed since the previous roll call. The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). That was half an hour ago. Mr. BEVERIDGE. Nothing has occurred since The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). That was half an hour ago, and the Senator from South Dakota has proceeded since. Mr. CULBERSON. Now, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). The Chair has four times counted those present in the Senate during this discussion, and 46 is the least number of Senators who have been present here at any time during this discussion. Mr. BEVERIDGE. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. Mr. SCOTT. I demand the regular order. The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). Four times Mr. BACON. I rise to a point of order. The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). The Chair will recognize the Senator from Indiana, not as a matter of right, but the Chair will recognize the Senator from Indiana to make a parliamentary inquiry. Mr. BEVERIDGE. The parliamentary inquiry is this: Does the Chair assume the right to count a quorum? The Chair has just stated The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). Under certain circumstances the Chair does; under existing circumstances the Chair does. Mr. BEVERIDGE. I appeal from that ruling. (See Cong. Record, pp. 3558, 3559, 3560.) The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). Does the Senator from South Dakota yield to the Senator from Texas? Mr. CRAWFORD. I do. Mr. CULBERSON. In order to keep the matter along systematically I desire to read the first paragraph from the Precedents, on page 404, from which the Chair read a few minutes ago: "Forty-second Congress, second session, April 20, 1872: "The bill H. R. 174, repealing the duty on tea and coffee, being under consideration, a call of the Senate was had, followed by a motion to adjourn, which was not agreed to. Without debate, another motion to adjourn was made, which the Presiding Officer (Mr. Ferry, of Michigan) ruled out of order, 'no business having intervened.' "Discussion having taken place, a third motion to adjourn was made, to which an objection was made. The Presiding Officer (Mr. Ferry, of Michigan) said 'there was discussion that intervened, and therefore business of the Senate.' (See Cong. Globe, p. 2627.)" I want to insert this in the record in connection with what was said by the Chair. The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). The Chair calls the attention of the Senator from Texas to the fact that all that took place in the Forty-second Congress, and the ruling to which the Chair referred took place in the Fifty-fourth Congress and subsequently in the Sixtieth Congress. The Senate has twice voted that debate was not intervening business, once upon the direct question submitted by Vice President Fairbanks, and, second, upon a motion made by the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Aldrich) to lay the appeal on the table. (See Cong. Record, p. 3560.) 2. THAT DEBATE IS NOT INTERVENING, 60th Cong., 1st sess.; J., pp. 12-514.] MAY 29, 1908. The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 21817) "to amend the national banking laws." After further debate, Mr. La Follette raised a question as to the presence of a quorum; Whereupon, The Vice President directed the roll to be called; When, Fifty-two Senators answered to their names. A quorum being present, After further debate, Mr. La Follette raised a question as to the presence of a quorum; Whereupon, The Presiding Officer (Mr. Bacon in the chair) directed the roll to be called; Fifty-two Senators answered to their names. A quorum being present, After further debate, Mr. La Follette raised a question as to the presence of a quorum; [This entry, in like terms, is recorded in the Journal of May 29 fifteen times, and, in addition, while Mr. La Follette occupied the floor, but yielded for the purpose, Mr. Stone and Mr. Gore each raised the question twice. After the eighteenth roll call, and after further debate-] Mr. La Follette raised a question as to the presence of a quorum. Mr. Aldrich raised a question of order, viz, that a roll call of the Senate having disclosed the presence of a quorum, and no business having intervened, the suggestion of the absence of a quorum is not in order. The Vice President submitted the question to the Senate: Is the point of order well taken? It was determined in the affirmative, yeas 35, nays 8. After further debate, Mr. La Follette raised a question as to the presence of a quorum. The Vice President ruled that the question raised had been decided by the Senate and was not in order, no business having intervened since the last roll call of the Senate, which disclosed the presence of a quorum. From the decision of the Chair Mr. La Follette appealed to the Senate. On motion by Mr. Aldrich to lay the appeal on the table, Mr. La Follette demanded a division of the Senate. The yeas were 33 and the nays were 8. [When the result was announced, Mr. Aldrich asked for the yeas and nays,] And it was determined in the affirmative, yeas 35, nays 13. So the appeal of Mr. La Follette from the decision of the Chair was laid on the table. (See Cong. Record, pp. 7195, 7196, 7199, 7220, 7221, 7228, 7259, 7261.) 61st Cong., 8d sess.] FEBRUARY 27, 1911. The question of calling for a quorum being under consideration with the statement that no business had intervened since the last roll call, The Vice President (Mr. Sherman) said: "The Senate has repeatedly held that discussion is not business, but the present occupant of the chair, regardless of that rule, at any time when a reasonable length of time has been consumed in discussion and it was reasonably apparent that a quorum was present, should entertain the demand for a roll call. But where, as in the present case, a roll call has twice been demanded within the last 40 minutes and each time upward of 70 Senators have answered to their names, there having been no intermediate business save discussion, the Chair sustains the point of order made—that a Senator can not raise the point that there is no quorum present. * * * * "In the last Congress it was repeatedly held by the Chair, and the Chair was repeatedly sustained by the Senate, that debate was not intervening business." (See Cong. Record, pp. 3558, 3559.) 3. DEBATE IS INTERVENING, 42d Cong., 2d sess.] APRIL 20, 1872. The bill (H. R. 174) "Repealing the duty on tea and coffee" being under consideration, a call of the Senate was had, followed by a motion to adjourn, which was not agreed to. Without debate, another motion to adjourn was made, which the Presiding Officer (Mr. Ferry of Michigan) ruled out of order, "no business having intervened." Discussion having taken place, a third motion to adjourn was made, to which an objection was made. The Presiding Officer (Mr. Ferry of Michigan) said "there was discussion that intervened, and therefore business of the Senate." (See Cong. Globe, p. 2627.) 4. A, QUORUM BEING PRESENT ON LAST ROLL CALL, ITS ABSENCE CAN NOT IMMEDIATELY BE SUGGESTED, NO, HAVING INTERVENED. 61st Cong., 3d sess.; J., pp. 210, 211.] FEBRUARY 27, 1913. Pending debate on the resolution declaring that William Lorimer was not duly and legally elected to a seat in the Senate of the United States by the legislature of the State of Illinois, the question as to the presence of a quorum was several times raised, and on the call of the roll a quorum was shown to be present on each call. Pending further debate, Mr, Owen raised a question as to the presence of a quorum: The Vice President (Mr. Sherman) ruled that the question raised was not in order, no business having intervened since the last roll call of the Senate, which disclosed the presence of a quorum. (See Cong. Record, pp. 3557.) 24143°-S. Doc. 1123, 62-3- -16 |