GALLERIES, DISORDER IN.

24th Cong., 2d sess.; J. p. 124.]

JANUARY 16, 1837.

On occasions when some manifestations of approval or disapproval have been made in the galleries, it has been found necessary to clear the whole or a portion of them of spectators, and in one instance, during the discussion of the resolutions to expunge from the Journal the resolution of censure upon President Jackson, an offender was brought to the bar of the Senate under arrest, but immediately discharged.

The question being on the passage of the expunging resolution, disorderly conduct having occurred in the gallery,

On motion by Mr. Benton,

The Sergeant at Arms was ordered by the President to take the persons offending into custody.

The Sergeant at Arms reported that he had, in pursuance of the said order, taken a person, represented as having been engaged in the disorderly conduct, into custody. On motion by Mr. Benton,

That the person represented as having been engaged in disorderly conduct be forthwith brought to the bar of the Senate,

It was determined in the affirmative; yeas, 18, nays 8.

The Sergeant at Arms having executed the aforesaid order,

A motion was made by Mr. Benton that the said person, so brought before the bar of the Senate, be discharged from the custody of the Sergeant at Arms,

And it was determined in the affirmative: yeas, 23, nays 1.

So the person brought to the bar was discharged from custody. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 98, 99.)

NOTE.-Numerous instances are found in the Journals where the galleries have been cleared of disorderly persons, and where the Sergeant at Arms has been instructed to arrest the offenders.

432

GERMANE.

A POINT OF ORDER CAN NOT BE MADE AGAINST AN AMENDMENT TO A BILL NOT A GENERAL APPROPRIATION BILL AS NOT BEING. FEBRUARY 26, 1913.

62d Cong., 3d sess.]

The omnibus public building bill being under consideration, a claim growing out of the construction of a public building, having been proposed,

Mr. CLAPP. It grows out of a public building.

Mr. SUTHERLAND. Yes; it does not belong on this bill any more than if it grew out of something else, and I make the point of rder against the amendment. The PRESIDENt pro tempore (Mr. Gallinger). On what ground?

Mr. SUTHERLAND. That it is not germane and it is a private claim.

The PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE (Mr. Gallinger). Neither of those points would lie. This not being a general appropriation bill, the question as to whether an amendment is germane or not does not apply; nor is there any inhibition against a private claim being attached to any bill except an appropriation bill. Hence the point of order is overruled. (See Cong. Record, p. 4063.)

HOLIDAY RECESS.

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION FOR ADJOURNMENT OVER THE, NEED

NOT LIE OVER ONE DAY.

43d Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 88.]

DECEMBER 18, 1873.

The President pro tempore laid before the Senate the following resolution, received this day from the House of Representatives:

Resolved, That when the two Houses adjourn on Friday, the 19th instant, they shall stand adjourned until Monday, the 5th of January next.

Mr. Edmunds objected to its consideration this day, and made the point of order that, being objected to under the twenty-sixth rule of the Senate, the resolution must lie over one day for consideration.

The President pro tempore (Matt H. Carpenter) overruled the point of order raised by Mr. Edmunds, on the ground that the twenty-sixth rule applied only to resolutions of the Senate; but that in the present case, being a resolution of the House of Representatives sent to the Senate for its concurrence, and having been laid before the Senate by the Chair, it was for the Senate to make of it what disposition it thought proper. (See Cong. Record, p. 302.)

24143°-S. Doc. 1123, 62-3- -28

433

HOUSE BILLS.

1. Consideration of, the same day received from the House. 2. Consideration of, on the calendar, ruled out of order.

1. CONSIDERATION OF, THE SAME DAY RECEIVED FROM THE HOUSE. 45th Cong., 2d sess.; J., pp. 774, 775.]

JUNE 19, 1878.

On motion by Mr. Voorhees that the Senate proceed to the consideration of bill to authorize the payment of customs duties in legal-tender notes, this day received from the House of Representatives, Mr. Conkling raised a point of order, viz, that the bill, having been this day received from the House, could not under the eighth rule, unless by unanimous consent, be presented to the Senate for its consideration until the call of the regular business of the morning hour to-morrow.

The President pro tempore (Mr. Ferry) decided that it was competent for the Senate to determine whether it could proceed to the consideration of the bill on this day. From this decision Mr. Conkling 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 33, nays 12. (See Cong. Record, pp. 4848, 4851.)

2. CONSIDERATION OF, ON THE CALENDAR, RULED OUT Of order. 49th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 1224.] AUGUST 2, 1886.

The resolution of Mr. Beck to proceed to the consideration of House bills on the calendar under Rule 8, and the resolution of Mr. Edmunds relative to consideration of business on the calendar under the same rule.

Mr. Miller raised a question of order that the resolutions would operate as a change in the standing rules, and that proper notice had not been given under the fortieth rule, and the President pro tempore (Mr. Sherman) sustained the point of order. (Sec Cong. Record, pp. 7846, 7847.)

Similar decision February 23, 1887. (49th Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 410; Cong. Record, p. 2103.)

434

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

1. In order to refer to proceedings in.

2. Not in order to refer to proceedings in.

3. Using indecent language against proceedings of.

4. Senator given the privilege for indulging in language disrespectful of the. 5. Reflections on, not permitted.

6. Not in order to read extract of the proceedings of the, or to animadvert upon the conduct of the.

7. Business transacted in Senate before organization of.

8. Reception of messages from the, without a quorum.

9. Message from the, the regular order.

10. Prerogatives of.

1. IN ORDER TO REFER TO PROCEEDINGS IN.

Jefferson's Manual, Section XVII, order in debate, page 96, we have→

It is a breach of order in debate to notice what has been said on the same subject in the other House, or the particular votes or majorities on it there, because the opinion of each House should be left to its own independency, not to be influenced by the proceedings of the other; and the quoting them might beget reflections leading to a misunderstanding between the two Houses.

47th Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 439.]

FEBRUARY 28, 1883.

The President pro tempore (Mr. David Davis) decided that it was not in order to refer to any action had in the House of Representatives upon any question not officially communicated to the Senate; and the Senate refused to lay an appeal on the table; yeas 24, nays 26.

The question of order was withdrawn. (See Cong. Record, pp. 3368, 3369, 3371.) 2. NOT IN ORDER TO REFER TO PROCEEDINGS OF THE OTHER HOUSE.

53d Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 166.]

APRIL 25, 1894.

Mr. Dolph, while addressing the Senate, proceeded to read an extract from a speech delivered in the House of Representatives upon the pending bill. Mr. Gray raised a question or order, that it was not in order to quote and comment upon a speech made during the same Congress by a Member of the other House upon the same bill. The Vice President (Mr. Stevenson) sustained the point of order and decided that it was out of order in debate to notice what had been said on the same subject in the other House upon the bill.

An appeal from the decision was laid on the table; yeas 43, nays 2. (See Cong. Record, pp. 4081-4082.)

3. AGAINST USING INDECENT LANGUAGE AGAINST PROCEEDINGS OF. Jefferson's Manual, same section and subject, on page 93, says: "No person is to use indecent language against the proceedings of the House; no prior determination of which is to be reflected on by any Member, unless he means to conclude with a motion

to rescind it. (2 Hats., 169, 170; Rushw., p. 3, v. 1, fol. 42.) But while a proposition under consideration is still in fieri, though it has even been reported by a committee, reflections on it are no reflections on the House." (9 Grey, 508.)

4. A SENATOR GIVEN THE PRIVILEGE FOR INDULGING IN LANGUAGE DISRESPECTFUL OF THE.

40th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 87.]

MARCH 23, 1867.

The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution of the House of Representatives, communicating for the information of the Senate certain testimony taken before one of its committees, “which apparently affects one or more Members of the Senate;" and, That portion of the testimony contained in the examination of D. A. Hull, a witness before the Committee on Public Expenditures of the House of Representatives, having been read,

Mr. Doolittle, while addressing the Chair, was called to order by the President pro tempore for indulging in language disrespectful to the House of Representatives, and impugning the motives of the members of one of its committees.

Mr. Doolittle having taken his seat,

On motion by Mr. Johnson, it was

Ordered, That Mr. Doolittle have leave to proceed with his remarks in his own way. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 295, 297.)

5. REFLECTIONS ON, NOT PERMITTED.

48th Cong., 1st sess.]

MAY 8, 1884.

The Senate passed H. R. 2228, "to remove certain burdens on the American merchant marine," etc., with amendments, and Mr. Frye moved for a committee of conference, and during its consideration he said: "If this bill goes over without a request for a conference, the point of order is made to it promptly. No bill can possibly pass the Senate that some Member of the House will not be opposed to."

The PRESIDENt pro tempore (Mr. Edmunds). "The Chair thinks that any allusion to the proceedings of the House of Representatives is not in order." Mr. Frye continued, saying: "Then I will suppose a case. A point of order may be made against it in another place. If the point of order should be made against it in another place that might carry it to the Committee of the Whole, and if it did carry it to the Committee of the Whole it would be buried so that it would not be reached in the next four-—” The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair must interrupt the Senator from Maine. The Chair thinks that that does not bring his observation within the rule. (See Cong. Record, p. 3976.)

6. NOT IN ORDER TO READ EXTRACT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE, OR TO ANIMADVERT UPON THE CONDUCT OF THE. 62d Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 622.]

QUESTION OF ORDER.

AUGUST 26, 1912.

Mr. Culberson sent to the desk an extract from the Congressional Record relating to the action in the House of Representatives on 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. 25970) making appropriations to supply deficiencies in appropriations for the fiscal year 1912, and for prior years, and for other purposes. The Secretary proceeded to read the said extract;

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, I move the House adhere
When,

Mr. Williams raised a question of order, viz, that the statement proposed to be read being an extract of the proceedings of the House of Representatives, it is a breach of order in debate to notice what has been said on the same subject in the other House, and is therefore not in order.