The PRESIDENt pro tempore (Mr. Gallinger). The Chair always has been of opinion that Jefferson's Manual, so far as it is pertinent, is and has been recognized as a part of the rules of this body, and the Chair finds in Jefferson's Manual this statement: "It is a breach of order in debate to notice what has been said on the same subject in the other House, or to 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 of them might beget reflections leading to a misunderstanding between the two Houses.” While undoubtedly in debate in this body, and perhaps in the other body, that rule has not been strictly adhered to, yet, the point of order having been made, the Chair feels constrained to sustain it. (See Cong. Record, pp. 11878, 11879.) 7. BUSINESS TRANSACTED IN SENATE BEFORE ORGANIZATION OF. 31st Cong., 1st sess.; J., pp. 3-16.] DECEMBER 3-24, 1849. At the opening of the first session of the Thirty-first Congress, December, 1849, the Senate proceeded with and transacted business for a number of sessions before the House was organized. On December 22 Mr. Cobb, of Georgia, was chosen Speaker of the House, and on Monday, December 24, the House notified the Senate of its action and gave notice that it was ready to proceed to business. On the last-named day a joint committee was appointed to wait upon the President to notify him a quorum of each House had assembled, and that Congress was ready to receive any communication he might be pleased to make. President Taylor communicated a long message on that day. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 1, 73.) 36th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 90.] JANUARY 19, 1860. A motion was made by Mr. Bingham to refer the bill (S. 92) authorizing the courts to adjudicate the claim of the legal representatives of the Sieur de Bonne and Chevalier de Repentigny to certain lands at the Sault Ste. Marie, in the State of Michigan, to the Committee on Private Land Claims. Mr. Mason raised a question of order: Whether the motion of Mr. Bingham was in order in the existing condition of the two Houses? The Vice President, under the sixth rule, submitted the question for the decision of the Senate; and it was determined in the affirmative; yeas 45, nays 7. Ib.; J., pp. 89-90.] [SAME DATE.] The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution, yesterday submitted by Mr. Bayard, relative to the action of the Senate on bills and joint resolutions, or other business requiring the concurrence of the House of Representatives, before receiving notice of the organization of the House. After debate the resolution was ordered to lie on the table. 39th Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 6.] DECEMBER 3, 1866. Upon the opening day of the second session of the Thirty-ninth Congress, and before the Senate had been notified that the House of Representatives was organized, A motion was made by Mr. Sumner that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill (S. 1) to regulate the elective franchise in the District of Columbia. A question of order was raised by Mr. McDougall, to wit: Was the motion in order under the twenty-first joint rule of the two Houses; and The President pro tempore (Mr. La Fayette Foster) decided that the motion under the twenty-first joint rule, as settled by a former decision of the Senate in a similar case, was not in order. (See Cong. Globe, p. 2.) 8. RECEPTION OF MESSAGES FROM, WITHOUT A QUORUM. 49th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 1288.] AUGUST 5, 1886. The President pro tempore (Mr. Sherman) decided that less than quorum could not take a recess. (See Cong. Record, p. 8022.) At same time decided that less than a quorum could receive a message from the President of the United States, because the rules do not exclude a message from the House of Representatives or the President in absence of a quorum. (J., pp. 1288, 1289; idem, p. 8022.) An appeal was taken, but because of a want of a quorum it was not entertained by the President pro tempore. (J., p. 1288; idem, pp. 8022, 8023.) Same points. Decided same way, and message of the President was read. (J., p. 1292; idem, p. 8022.) For same reason a message from the House of Representatives was received. (J., p. 1289; idem, p. 8022.) 9. MESSAGE from thE, THE REGULAR ORDER. 62d Cong., 2d sess.] JULY 15, 1912. The PRESIDENt pro tempore (Mr. Gallinger). The message of the House will be laid before the Senate. The Secretary read as follows: "In the House of Representatives, July 8, 1912: Resolved, That the Clerk be directed to return to the Senate, in compliance with its request, Senate bill 6084, granting pensions and increase of pensions to certain soldiers and sailors of the Civil War and to certain widows and dependent relatives of such soldiers and sailors." Mr. McCUMBER. I move to reconsider the vote by which the Senate disagreed to the amendments of the House and requested a conference. Mr. STONE. Mr. President, I demand the regular order. Mr. McCUMBER. I have not yet yielded the floor. We had another matter before the Senate when the call for a quorum was made. Mr. STONE. The regular order is demanded. The PRESIDENT pro tempore (Mr. Gallinger). It is the regular order. It is a mes-" sage from the House which, under the rules, the Chair is compelled to lay before the Senate at any time. Mr. McCUMBER. I move that the Senate reconsider the vote by which it disagreed to the amendments of the House to Senate bill 6084 and requested a conference with the House and the conferees were appointed. Mr. STONE. I object, and demand the regular order. The PRESIDENt pro tempore (Mr. Gallinger). It is the regular order. Mr. STONE. I beg the Chair's pardon; I make the point of order that laying the message of the House before the Senate is one thing and proceeding to legislate upon that message is another thing. The PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE (Mr. Gallinger). The Chair is of opinion that any motion relating to the message from the House must be in order, either to recede or concur. The Chair would suggest that it has been the universal practice of the Senate to act upon a message of this kind, and yet if there is objection the Chair will permit the matter to go over until another time. Does the Senator from Missouri enter the objection? Mr. STONE. I made the objection. The PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE (Mr. Gallinger). Then the matter will go over for the present. The unfinished business is before the Senate. (See Cong. Record, pp. 9063, 9064.) 10. PREROGATIVES OF. 38th Cong., 1st sess.; J., pp. 686-687.] JUNE 30, 1864. A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. McPherson, its Clerk: Mr. President: I am directed to return to the Senate the bill of the House (H. R. 549) "further to regulate and provide for the enrolling and calling out the national forces, and for other purposes," with the amendments of the Senate thereto, and to communicate to the Senate a resolution of the House of Representatives in the following words: Resolved, That the amendment of the Senate, section No. 12, added by the Senate to House bill No. 549, in the opinion of this House contravenes the first clause of the seventh section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States, and is an infringement of the privileges of this House, and that the said bill, with the amendments, be respectfully, returned to the Senate with a message communicating this resolution.." The Senate proceeded to consider the message, and on motion by Mr. Grimes that the vote on the passage of the said bill be reconsidered, It was determined in the affirmative. The vote ordering the amendment to be engrossed and the bill read a third time was, on motion by Mr. Grimes, also reconsidered. On motion by Mr. Grimes that the vote concurring in the amendment made to the bill in Committee of the Whole be reconsidered. It was determined in the affirmative; and the question then recurring, "Will the Senate concur in the said amendment?" On motion by Mr. Grimes to amend the amendment made in Committee of the Whole by striking out all of section No. 12, it was determined in the affirmative. The amendment made in Committee of the Whole, as amended in the Senate, was then concurred in. Ordered, That the amendment be engrossed and the bill read a third time. Resolved, That it pass. (See Cong. Globe, p. 3408.) NOTE.-This action on the part of the Senate would indicate acquiescence in the contention of the House. IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS. 44th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 770.] JULY 31, 1876. Regular order, impeachment trial: Senate decided it was not in order for the Senate, in its legislative session, on a motion, unless by unanimous consent, to postpone the regular order, and that such question should be decided by the Senate when sitting for the trial of impeachment. (See Cong. Record, p. 341; impeachment proceedings, W. W. Belknap.) The President pro tempore (Mr. Ferry), presiding officer, decided that an order to change the twenty-second rule of procedure and practice for impeachment could be considered, and therefore was not required under the rules of the Senate to be submitted one day for consideration; he also decided that a vote could be taken on a proposition that had been previously voted on and rejected. (Appendix, pp. 989, 990; impeachment trial of W. W. Belknap, p. 342.) INJUNCTION OF SECRECY. (See EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.) JOINT RESOLUTION OR BILL. MOTION TO TAKE UP A, WHILE A BILL IS PENDING, IN ORDER. 61st Cong., 3d sess.] FEBRUARY 3, 1911. The Senate had under consideration S. 9955, "to provide for the leasing of coal and coal lands in the Territory of Alaska," when Mr. Borah moved to take up joint resolution 134, "proposing an amendment to the Constitution providing that Senators shall be elected by the people of the several States." Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I make the point of order that the Senate having already agreed to take up another bill and having entered upon the consideration of it, while that bill is under consideration and not laid aside, the motion of the Senator from Idaho is not in order. The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). The Chair will have to rule against the Senator from Minnesota. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Idaho. (See Cong. Record, p. 1898.) 440 JOINT RULES. 1. For continuing business in a subsequent session. 2. No, in force. 1. FOR CONTINUING BUSINESS IN A SUBSEQUENT SESSION. Rule 21. After six days from the commencement of a second or subsequent session of Congress, all bills, resolutions, or reports which originated in either House, and at the close of the next preceding session remained undetermined in either House, shall be resumed and acted on in the same manner as if an adjournment had not taken place. (14 August, 1848.) 34th Cong., 2d sess.; J., pp. 661, 668.] AUGUST 21, 1856. A resolution is submitted and agreed to, to suspend the twenty-first joint rule, so as to allow action upon a House bill (Army appropriation bill) before the expiration of six days from the commencement of a session. This resolution was sent to the House and agreed to (p. 668) and then the bill was taken up. (See Cong. Globe, p. 1.) 35th Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 39.] DECEMBER 7, 1858. Mr. Gwin moved to take up a Senate bill (Pacific Railroad bill) on the second day of a session. A question of order was raised by Mr. Pearce, viz, that under the twentyfirst joint rule the motion was not in order. The point of order was sustained by the Chair (Mr. Breckinridge). (See Cong. Globe, pp. 6, 7.) 39th Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 6.] DECEMBER 3, 1866. Mr. Sumner moved to take up a Senate bill (elective franchise in the District of Columbia). Question of order raised by Mr. McDougal, that the motion was not in order under the twenty-first joint rule, and point of order sustained (Mr. Foster in the chair). (See Cong. Globe, p. 2.) At the third session Forty-first Congress, December 5, 1870, Mr. Sherman moved to take up a House bill (ceding jurisdiction to Ohio). The Vice President (Mr. Colfax) called attention of the Senate to previous rulings upon similar motions made within the first six days of the session; a debate ensued. (Cong. Globe, p. 3.) Vice President (Mr. Colfax) submits question to Senate, and Senate adjourned. December 6, question again debated, but no decision reached on the question of order. The question then dropped. It would seem, however, that the former rulings were acquiesced in. This debate shows a distinction, in the operation of the rule, between Senate bills and bills of the House. It was ruled not to apply to Senate bills brought in before the expiration of the six-day period. 2. NO, IN FORCE. 44th Cong., 2d sess.; J., pp. 31-36.] DECEMBER 6-8, 1876. On motion by Mr. Edmunds that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the joint resolution (S. 10) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, |