The Presiding Officer (Mr. Cockrell in the chair) submitted the question of order to the Senate; when, Mr. Matthews having proceeding to address the Senate on the question raised, Mr. Davis, of West Virginia, raised a second question of order, that the question submitted to the Senate should be decided without debate. The Presiding Officer decided that the question of order submitted to the Senate for its decision could be debated. From this decision Mr. Eaton appealed to the Senate; and, on motion of Mr. Oglesby that the appeal lie on the table, it was decided in the affirmative. On the question, "Is the amendment submitted by Mr. Matthews in order?" it was decided in the affirmative. (See Cong. Record, pp. 1478, 1482.) In discussing a point of order raised the Presiding Officer (Mr. Mitchell in the chair) said "When the Chair decides a point of order he can decide it without debate, or he may submit any question of order for the decision of the Senate. He has submitted this question of order for the decision of the Senate, and he holds that it is debatable." The Chair was sustained by laying an appeal on the table. (J., p. 298; see Cong. Record, pp. 1478, 1479.) 62d Cong., 3d sess.] FEBRUARY 25, 1913. The next amendment was, in the item of appropriation for the allowances of inspectors, on page 3, line 6, after the word "further," to strike out "that no part of the sums herein provided for the salaries of post-office inspectors or for per diem allowances to such inspectors shall be paid or allowed to them while they may be engaged in making selections and recommendations for the appointment of fourth-class postmasters," and insert "that when hereafter any vacancy shall occur in the office of postmaster of the fourth class in any of the States of the United States the compensation of the postmaster of which office is $300 or more per year, a special nominating election may be held for the purpose of nominating a postmaster to fill such vacancy. Such nominating elections shall be conducted by the local authorities of the county, township, incorporated town, or city in which such post office is situated, the same as the election for county, township, of municipal offices, and the laws and regulations of the State and township or city in which such post office is located shall be held to apply to and be applicable to the conduct of such nominating election; and the actual necessary expenses incurred in the conducting of such nominating election shall be paid out of the appropriation from the Treasury of the United States for the support and maintenance of the Post Office Department of the United States, and the compensation of the necessary officials for such nominating election shall be the same as that provided by State statutes or city ordinances relating to the expenses for conducting county, township, or municipal elections," so as to make the proviso read: " 'And provided further, That when hereafter any vacancy shall occur in the office of postmaster of the fourth class in any of the States of the United States, etc." Mr. TOWNSEND. Mr. President, I feel constrained to raise a point of order on that amendment as being general legislation. The PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE (Mr. Gallinger). The Chair will call attention to the fact that under Rule XX a point of order shall not be debated unless it is submitted to the Senate. The Chair sustains the point of order as to the part inserted by the committee. (See Cong. Record, pp. 3910 to 3914.) 17. NOT IN ORDER UNTIL VOTE IS ANNOUNCED OR PENDING UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO VOTE ON A BILL. 57th Cong., 1st sess., J.. p. 182.] FEBRUARY 24, 1902. During a roll call on an amendment to H. R. 5833 "to temporarily provide revenue for the Philippine Islands," etc., the names of Senators Tillman and McLaurin of South Carolina were not called. Mr. Turner raised a question of order, viz, That the names of the Senators from South Carolina not having been called, they had thereby been deprived of their constitutional right to vote, and that they were entitled so to do. The President pro tempore overruled the question of order and decided that the two Senators having been adjudged by the Senate to be in contempt, could therefore not vote. From the decision of the Chair Mr. Turner appealed to the Senate, and proceeded to debate the appeal. Whereupon, Mr. Lodge raised a question of order, viz, That until the vote had been announced from the Chair, debate was not in order. The President pro tempore sustained the question of order and thereupon announced the result of the vote. So the amendment was not agreed to. Mr. Turner rose to a question of privilege and stated that by the ruling of the Chair the State of South Carolina had been prevented from exercising its constitutional right by the participation of its representatives in the proceedings before the Senate. After debate, Mr. Aldrich raised a question of order, viz, That under the unanimous consent agreement made on the 24th instant that the Senate would proceed with its votes upon the pending bill and amendments without further debate. The President pro tempore submitted the question to the Senate for its determina, tion; and the question of order was sustained; yeas 46, nays 25. (See Cong. Recordpp. 2124-2131.) 18. CAN DISCUSS MERITS OF A BILL ON A MOTION TO POSTPONE PRIOR ORDERS. 35th Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 381.] FEBRUARY 25, 1859. A motion was pending to proceed to the consideration of a House bill. Mr. Seward, while addressing the Chair, was called to order by Mr. Slidell on the ground that on a motion to postpone the prior orders Mr. Seward was entering on the discussion of the comparative merits of the two bills. The Vice President (Mr. Breckinridge) decided that Mr. Seward was in order. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 1351-1353.) 19. CAN NOT DISCUSS MERITS OF A BILL ON A MOTION TO POSTPONE SAME. 35th Cong., 2d sess.; J., pp. 381, 382.] FEBRUARY 25, 1859. The debate continuing on motion to postpone the same and prior orders. Mr. Doolittle, rising to address the Chair, was called to order by Mr. Johnson of Arkansas, who made a point of order that on a motion to postpone the pending bill and all prior orders for the purpose of considering a House bill the merits of the bill should not be discussed. The Vice President (Mr. Breckinridge) decided that Mr. Doolittle was in order. From this decision Mr. Johnson appealed, and the decision of the Chair was reversed, 22 Senators voting to sustain, 29 to overrule. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 1351-1353.) 20. INTERVENING BUSINESS IS DEBATE. 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.) 21. THAT, IS NOT INTERVENING BUSINESS. 61st Cong., 3d 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.) 22. TO REFER IN, THAT ACTION OF SENATORS IS A "LEGISLATIVE TRICK" NOT IN ORDER. 61st Cong., 1st sess.; J., pp. 102, 103.] JUNE 11, 1909. The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the consideration of the bill (H. R. 1438) to provide revenue, equalize duties, and encourage the industries of the United States, and for other purposes. The question being on the amendment proposed by Mr. La Follette to further amend the bill, as follows: Amend paragraph 356 by striking out the word "three," in line 23, on page 124, and insert the word two, etc. Mr. La Follette, while addressing the Senate, having used the following language: "Mr. President, let me say to the Senator from Rhode Island that he need not feel any anxiety about the report which Senators from the Middle West will be able to make when they return here after having met and stated their positions upon all these questions to their constituents. He can not by any legislative trick in amendments that have been voted upon plant in the mind of any Senator here who has been exercising some independence any timidity or terror." Mr. Gallinger raised a question of order, viz: That it was not in order to charge a Senator with practicing a legislative trick. The Vice President (Mr. Sherman) sustained the question of order and decided that the remarks were in violation of Rule XIX, clause 2, and that the Senator from Wisconsin should proceed in order. (See Cong. Record, pp. 3126, 3127.) 23. A BILL NOT OPEN TO, DURING THE FIRST READING. 61st Cong., 3d sess.] MARCH 2, 1911. During the consideration of the Post Office appropriation bill: The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). The regular order, which has been demanded, is the reading of the bill. It can not be interrupted by debate. If the Senator from Missouri rises to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair will be very glad to hear him. Mr. STONE. Well, I will make a parliamentary inquiry. The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). The Senator will please state it. Mr. STONE. When the bill is being read the first time, do I understand the Chair to say that it is not open to debate? The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). It is not open to debate during the first reading. At the conclusion of the reading it is. (See Cong. Record, p. 3877.) 24. A SENATOR MAY NOT SPEAK IN, MORE THAN TWICE ON THE SAME SUBJECT IN ONE DAY. 61st Cong., 3d sess.; J., p. 235.] Pending debate on the bill (to create a tariff board), MARCH 2, 1911. Mr. Beveridge raised a question of order, viz: That the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Stone), having spoken twice on the same subject in one day, was therefore not in order. The Vice President (Mr. Sherman) sustained the question of order; and 25. ON RECONSIDERATION OF A BILL RETURNED TO THE SENATE BY THE PRESIDENT WITHOUT HIS APPROVAL, IS IN ORDER. 62d Cong., 3d sess.; J., p. 304.] VETO OF SUNDRY CIVIL APPROPRIATION BILL. MARCH 3, 1913. The Senate proceeded to reconsider the bill (H. R. 28775) making appropriations or sundry civil expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1914, and for other purposes, returned by the President of the United States to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with his objections thereto, and passed by the House of Representatives on a reconsideration of the same. The President pro tempore (Mr. Gallinger) stated the question to be, Shall the bill pass, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding? Pending debate, Mr. Fletcher raised a question of order, viz, that in the reconsideration of a bill returned by the President without his approval debate is not in order. The President pro tempore (Mr. Gallinger) overruled the point of order. (See Cong. Record, pp. 4838, 4839.) DELEGATION OF A STATE. A PAPER ADDRESSED TO THE, CAN NOT BE RECEIVED. 40th Cong., 2d sess.; J., pp. 214, 215.] FEBRUARY 25, 1868. Mr. Chandler presented a letter addressed to the delegation from the State of Michigan by the governor, which he asked to be read; and the reading thereof having been commenced, Mr. Hendricks rose to a question of order and objected to the reception of the letter, and stated that being addressed to the delegation from the State of Michigan, and upon a matter not before the Senate for legislation, it was not in order. The President pro tempore (Mr. Wade) submitted the question to the decision of the Senate, to wit: "Shall the paper be received," and it was determined in the negative. (See Cong. Globe, p. 1403.) DEPARTMENTS, HEADS OF. 38th Cong., 2d sess.; J., pp. 300–312.] MARCH 3, 1865. It is a breach of privilege for the head of a department, when called upon by a resolution of the Senate for information, to communicate irrelevant matter not embraced in the resolution. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 1346, 1347, 1361.) 49th Cong., 1st sess.; J., pp. 479-480.] On motion by Mr. Edmunds, MARCH 26, 1886. The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolutions expressing the sense of the Senate on the refusal of the Attorney General to send to the Senate copies of papers called for by its resolution of January 25, 1886; and The question being on the amendment proposed by Mr. Van Wyck, and Mr. Van Wyck having modified the same so as to amend by inserting at the end of the third resolution the words and in all such cases of removal the matter shall be considered in open session of the Senate. After debate, Mr. Hoar raised a question of order, viz, that as the amendment would operate as a change in the standing rules of the Senate, it was not in order except on one day's notice as required by the fortieth rule. The President pro tempore (Mr. Sherman) sustained the point of order, and decided that as the thirty-sixth rule provides that when acting upon confidential or executive business the Senate Chamber shall be cleared of all persons except certain officers specified, and as the communications referred to in the resolutions are executive communications, known to be such, the proposed amendment which would change the rule to a certain extent was not in order under the fortieth rule, which requires one day's notice in writing, specifying precisely the rule or part of rule proposed to be modified or amended. From the decision of the Chair, Mr. Butler appealed to the Senate. Decision of the Chair sustained, appeal laid on table; yeas 31, nays 28. (See Cong. Record, pp. 2784-2809.) Ib.; J., p. 481.] [SAME DATE.] Resolutions expressing the sense of the Senate on refusal of the Attorney General to send to the Senate copies of papers called for by the resolution of January 25, 1886, being before the Senate, they were divided. On the question to agree to the third resolution, as follows, viz: Resolved, That it is, under these circumstances, the duty of the Senate to refuse its advice and consent to proposed removals of officers the documents and papers in reference to the supposed official or personal misconduct of whom are withheld by the executive or any head of a department when deemed necessary by the Senate and called for in considering the matter. Mr. Gray raised a question of order, viz, that this resolution, inasmuch as it undertakes to deal with nominations made to the Senate by the executive en masse, by declaring that it is the duty of the Senate to refuse to advise and consent to a certain |