1877. The credentials were read. Mr. Thurman then submitted the following resolution and asked for its present consideration:

"Resolved, That Henry M. Spofford, whose credentials as a Senator from the State of Louisiana have been this day read, be now sworn and admitted as such Senator." Mr. Edmunds objected to the consideration of the said resolution this day, and raised the point of order that under the thirty-third rule of the Senate, which requires that all resolutions shall lie over one day for consideration, the resolution could not now be considered.

The Vice President (Mr. Wheeler) overruled the point of order raised by Mr. Edmunds, and decided that under the seventh rule of the Senate the presentation of the credentials of a Senator being a question of privilege, all questions and motions arising thereon were in order at this time and that the consideration of the resolution could now be proceeded with. (See Cong. Record, p. 78; special session.)

45th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 101.]

NOVEMBER 28, 1877.

Mr. Wadleigh rose to a question of privilege and moved that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the resolution yesterday reported by the Committee on Privileges and Elections to admit William Pitt Kellogg to a seat in the Senate as a Senator from the State of Louisiana.

Mr. Thurman objected to the consideration of the motion at this time and raised a question of order that, under the eighth rule of the Senate, until the business of the morning hour shall have been concluded and so announced from the Chair, the motion was not in order and could not be entertained unless by unanimous consent.

The Vice President (Mr. Wheeler) overruled the question of order, and decided that the motion was a question of privilege within the meaning of the seventh rule of the Senate and was in order at this time, and the question of proceeding to the consideration of the resolution could be determined by a majority of the Senate. From this decision Mr. Thurman appealed to the Senate, and on the question, "Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate?" it was determined in the affirmative; yeas 29, nays 28. (See Cong. Record, pp. 728-730.)

On the next day (November 29) the Vice President (Mr. Wheeler) in reply to a parliamentary inquiry that the question of the consideration of a resolution to seat a Senator was a question of privilege which can be dispensed with only by unanimous consent (Record, p. 749), and the Senate thereafter proceeded day after day to consider the pending resolution until disposed of, immediately after the reading of the Journal. 46th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 124.]

MAY 6, 1879.

The Senate having under consideration the resolution reported from the Committee on Privileges and Elections May 1, 1879, instructing said committee to inquire into the matters alleged in the petition of Henry M. Spofford, relating to the right of Hon. William Pitt Kellogg to a seat in the Senate, pending debate, the Presiding Officer announced that the morning hour had expired.

Mr. Houston raised a question of order that the resolution, being a privileged question, must be proceeded with without motion and to the exclusion of other business. Mr. Houston having proceeded to read a decision of the Vice President, Mr. Wheeler, made November 29, 1877, Mr. Conkling raised a question of order that the Chair having submitted no question of order to the Senate, and there having been no ruling from which an appeal had been taken, under the fortieth rule Mr. Houston was not in order. The Presiding Officer overruled the question of order raised by Mr. Conkling, and decided that Mr. Houston was proceeding in order.

From the decision Mr. Carpenter appealed to the Senate.

Appeal ordered to lie on the table; yeas 24, nays 23.

Mr. Houston withdrew question of order. (See Cong. Record, pp. 1073-1075.)

3. THAT A RESOLUTION DECLARING A SENATOR NOT ENTITLED TO HIS SEAT WAS NOT A QUESTION OF THE HIGHEST PRIVI· LEGE, AND MUST STAND OVER ONE DAY.

61st Cong., 3d sess.; J., p. 64.]

JANUARY 9, 1911.

SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS.

Mr. Owen submitted the following resolution for consideration:

"Resolved, That the so-called election of William Lorimer on May 26, 1909, by the Legislature of the State of Illinois was illegal and void, and that he is not entitled to a seat in the United States Senate."

Mr. Gallinger raised a question of order, viz, that under the rule the resolution should go over one day, and was therefore not in order.

The Vice President (Mr. Sherman) overruled the point of order, and decided that a resolution of this character, presenting a question of the highest privilege, does not have to stand over for a day.

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

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

It was determined in the negative.

So the resolution went over for one day. (See Cong. Record, pp. 648, 649.)

4. CONSIDERATION OF, MAY BE LAID ON THE TABLE AND IS SUBJECT TO OTHER MOTIONS.

38th Cong., 2d sess.; J., pp. 186, 187.]

FEBRUARY 17, 1865.

Mr. Willey presented the credentials of the Hon. Joseph Segar, elected a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Virginia, to fill the vacancy occasioned by the death of the Hon. Lemuel J. Bowden; which were read.

A motion was made by Mr. Sumner that the credentials be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

On motion by Mr. Howard to amend the motion of Mr. Sumner by adding thereto the words and that the committee be instructed to inquire and report upon the election returns and qualifications of the claimant,

After debate,

On motion by Mr. Sherman that the credentials lie on the table,

Mr. McDougall raised a question of order, to wit: That the subject under consideration being a question of privilege, affecting the organization of the Senate, the motion to lie on the table, which precluded debate, was not in order.

The President pro tempore (Daniel Clark) decided that a question of privilege, when brought before the Senate for its action, was subject, like other questions, to such motion as any Senator may think proper to submit; and decided that the motion of Mr. Sherman was in order.

From this decision Mr. McDougall appealed; and

The question being submitted to the Senate, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate? it was determined in the affirmative.

On the question to agree to the motion that the credentials lie on the table, it was determined in the affirmative; yeas 29; nays 13.

5. DURING CONSIDERATION OF, MAY GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. 52d Cong., 2d sess.; J., MARCH 29, 1893.

p. 178.]

The Vice President (Mr. Stevenson) decided that, pending the consideration of a resolution for the admission of a Senator, which was privileged, it was in order to move to go into executive session. (See Cong. Record, vol. 25, part 1, pp. 48, 49; special session of the Senate.)

6. DURING CONSIDERATION OF, AN AMENDMENT WHICH IS SIMPLY A DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES, NOT IN ORDER.

52d Cong., 1st sess.; J., pp. 135, 136.]

MARCH 3, 1892.

A resolution declaring Fred T. Dubois entitled to retain the seat occupied by him as a Senator from the State of Idaho was pending; an amendment was submitted to strike out all after the word "resolved" and inserting, "That the vote or other proceeding that constitutes a choice of a Senator of the United States must be had by the legislature of the State in which such Senator is chosen, and until the houses of such legislature have met and organized as legislative bodies they can not choose a Senator of the United States," etc.

A question of order was raised, that the amendment is simply a declaration of principles and decides nothing; that it is offered as a substitute for a resolution which relates to a question of the highest privilege, namely, whether the sitting Member was or was not duly elected a Senator from the State of Idaho, and that it neither declares the contestant elected nor does it declare there was no election. The question of order being submitted to the Senate, the Senate, by a vote of 9 yeas to 51 nays, decided that the amendment was not in order. (See Cong. Record, pp. 1671, 1676.)

DEBATABLE.

A MOTION FOR AN ADJOURNMENT TO A DAY CERTAIN NOT. 62d Cong., 2d sess.

MAY 29, 1912.

In the discussion as to whether a motion to adjourn to a day certain was debatable the Senate acquiesced in the opinion that it was not. (See Cong. Record, pp. 7386, 7387.)

DEBATE.

1. Rule relating to.

2. Can be called to order for introducing in, subjects not relevant. 3. Irrelevancy.

4. Motion to rescind order for recèss, not debatable.

5. Appeal not debatable, original motion being nondebatable.

6. An appeal from the decision of the Chair must be decided without. 7. The previous question.

8. The previous question not in order upon an amendment.

9. Absent Senators, motion to direct Sergeant at arms to request attendance of, not debatable.

10. Limitation of debate.

11. Amendment in order after debate on its merits.

12. Motion to take up a subject laid on table, not debatable.

13. Motion to fix a special order may not be subject to, except by unanimous consent.

14. May read in debate a paper that is irrelevant to the question under consideration.

15. It is a breach of order in, to read extracts of proceedings of the House of Representatives relating to the same subject matter.

16. Question of order on being submitted to the Senate is debatable. 17. Not in order until the vote is announced, or pending unanimous consent to vote on a bill.

18. Can discuss merits of a bill on a motion to postpone same.

19. Can not discuss merits of a bill on a motion to postpone.

20. Intervening business is debate.

21. That, is not intervening business.

22. To refer in, that action of Senators is a “legislative trick,” not in order. 23. A bill not open to, during the first reading.

24. A Senator may not speak in, more than twice on the same subject in one day.

25. On reconsideration of a bill returned to the Senate by the President without his approval, is in order.

1. RULE RELATING TO.

RULE XIX.-Debate.

1. When a Senator desires to speak, he shall rise and address the Presiding Officer, and shall not proceed until he is recognized, and the Presiding Officer shall recognize the Senator who shall first address him. No Senator shall interrupt another Senator in debate without his consent, and to obtain such consent he shall first address the Presiding Officer; and no Senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same day without leave of the Senate, which shall be determined without debate. (Jefferson's Manual, Secs. XVII, XXXIX.)

2. No Senator in debate shall, directly of indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator. (Jefferson's Manual, Sec. XVII.)

3. No Senator in debate shall refer offensively to any State of the Union.

4. If any Senator, in speaking or otherwise, transgress the rules of the Senate, the Presiding Officer shall, or any Senator may, call him to order; and when a Senator shall be called to order he shall sit down, and not proceed without leave of the Senate, which, if granted, shall be upon motion that he be allowed to proceed in order, which motion shall be determined without debate. (Jefferson's Manual, Sec. XVII.)

5. If a Senator be called to order for words spoken in debate, upon the demand of the Senator or of any other Senator the exceptionable words shall be taken down in writing, and read at the table for the information of the Senate. (Jefferson's Manual, Sec XVII.)

2. CAN BE CALLED TO ORDER FOR INTRODUCING IN, SUBJECTS NOT RELEVANT.

30th Cong., 1st sess.; J., pp. 440, 441.]

JULY 5, 1848.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution of the House fixing a day for the adjournment of Congress.

Mr. Clayton, proceeding to address the Senate, was called to order by Mr. Niles on the ground that the topics introduced in debate were irrelevant to the subject matter of the resolution.

The Vice President (Mr. Dallas) stated that he had been for several days of opinion that the debate on this resolution had taken too wide a range, and now that the point was made he decided that the Senator from Delaware was out of order. (See Cong. Globe, p. 897.)

No appeal was taken, but on a vote (yeas 26, nays 22) Mr. Clayton was allowed to proceed. (See Cong. Globe, p. 898.)

30th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 588.]

AUGUST 12, 1848.

The bill to establish the Territorial government of Oregon being under consideration, Mr. Foote, continuing to address the Senate, was called to order by Mr. Niles on account of irrelevancy in his remarks to the subject before the Senate.

Mr. Yulee, in the chair, decided that Mr. Foote was not out of order. From this decision Mr. Niles appealed, and the decision of the Chair reversed; yeas 2, nays 27, and leave for Mr. Foote to proceed was not given; yeas 17, nays 17.

3. CAN NOT BE CALLED TO ORDER FOR IRRELEVANCY IN. 30th Cong., 1st sess.; J., pp. 591, 592.]

AUGUST 14, 1848.

On a proposition to suspend the seventeenth rule so far as relates to all bills which may have been passed, or which may be passed, by both Houses of Congress during the present session.

A debate ensued; and while Mr. Turney was addressing the Chair, he was called to order by Mr. Webster, on the ground that the course of discussion in which the honorable member from Tennessee was indulging, was not relevant to the subject before the Senate.

The President pro tempore (Mr. Atchison) decided that Mr. Turney was in order. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 1083-1084.)

42d Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 303.]

FEBRUARY 29, 1872.

Decided on an appeal

A Senator can not be called to order for irrelevancy in debate. from the Chair (Colfax); yeas 28, nays 18. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 1293-1294.) Since the above decisions were made the practice has been that a Senator can not be taken from the floor for irrelevancy in debate.

24143°-S. Doc. 1123, 62-3- -26