Mr. LODGE. I think it has been the universal practice

The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). The Chair thinks that is a matter which the Chair can not pass upon, but which the Senate must pass upon.

The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). The Senator from Washington has made a motion to proceed to the consideration of another matter.

Mr. LODGE. A motion to proceed to the consideration of executive business is a privileged motion.

The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). The Senator is correct in that statement. Mr. POINDEXTER. Mr. President, is not the motion which I made also a privileged motion under Rule IX?

The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). It is; but the motion which the Senator from Massachusetts makes takes precedence. (See Cong. Record, p. 2816.)

4. A MOTION TO PROCEED TO THE CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION RELATING TO CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS IS NOT A. 62d Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 617.] AUGUST 24, 1912.

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS.

On motion by Mr. La Follette, that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the resolution submitted by Mr. Penrose on August 22, providing that the Committee on Privileges and Elections, or any subcommittee thereof, be authorized to investigate into all statements and questions of fact referred to in the statement made by Mr. Penrose in the Senate on the 21st instant,

On motion by Mr. Smoot, that the Senate proceed to the consideration of bills unobjected to on the calendar under Rule VIII,

Mr. Williams raised a question of order, viz, that the motion made by Mr. La Follette was a privileged motion.

The President pro tempore (Mr. Gallinger) overruled the point of order. (See Cong. Record, pp. 11792, 11793, 11794.)

5. THAT A RESOLUTION DECLARING A SENATOR NOT ENTITLED TO HIS SEAT WAS NOT A QUESTION OF THE HIGHEST PRIVILEGE, 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.)

QUESTION.

A, ONCE CARRIED CAN NOT BE QUESTIONED AGAIN AT THE SAME SESSION, BUT MUST STAND AS THE JUDGMENT OF THE HOUSE. The Senate does not appear to have adopted any rule or made any precedent to show that a bill or joint resolution once carried or rejected can again be introduced during the same Congress unless the substance has been changed. We can only look to the proceedings of the House for precedents on this subject.

In one of the House manuals, Rule 13, adopted June 10, 1790, is as follows:

"13. When a bill or resolution which has been passed in one House shall be rejected in the other, it shall not be brought in during the same session without a notice of 10 days and leave of two-thirds of that House in which it shall be renewed."

In Section XLIII, RECONSIDERATION in Jefferson's Manual, we have: "In Parliament a question once carried can not be questioned again at the same session, but must stand as the judgment of the House. And a bill once rejected, another of the same substance can not be brought in again the same session."

In Hinds' Precedents, section 3384 reads as follows:

“3384. A bill having been rejected by the House, a similar but not identical bill on the same subject was afterwards held to be in order. On August 17, 1856, Mr. John Wheeler, of New York, presented a resolution instructing the Committee on Ways and Means (this committee then reported the appropriation bills) to report a bill for the support of the Army in accordance with the text accompanying the resolution. This new bill was drawn up the same as the Army bill, which had already failed because of differences between the House and Senate concerning a provision relating to the use of troops in Kansas, with the exception that the proviso relating to Kansas was stricken out, and three appropriations were changed as to amounts."

Mr. Benjamin Stanton, of Ohio, made the point of order that two Army appropriation bills had been disposed of this session, one coming over from last session and failing by difference between the Houses, and the other being defeated in the House. The Speaker (Mr. Banks) said: "But one bill for the support of the Army has been introduced at this session of Congress. The second bill came over from the last session. It was not introduced at this session of Congress. One bill introduced at this session of Congress has been defeated, but the bill embraced by the resolution before the House differs from that bill in the very material manner of wanting the proviso, which is the subject matter of controversy between the two Houses. The language of the manual read by the gentleman-that a bill once rejected, another of the same substance can not be brought in-refers to the provisions of a bill and not to bills on the same subject. The Chair is of the opinion that the resolution is in order." (34th Cong., 2d sess., Cong. Globe, pp. 55, 81.)

. On December 19, 1864 (2d sess., 38th Cong.), Mr. Speaker Colfax held that a resolution which the House had laid on the table could not be again presented unless modified. (See Cong. Globe, p. 66.)

QUORUM.

1. What number constitutes.

2. In impeachment trials, same as, of the Senate.

3. That reading of the journal can not be interrupted by making the point of order that no, is present.

4. Call for a, may be withdrawn.

5. Counting a.

6. Counting a, by adding those who had announced pairs as present in order because the journal had been read and approved announcing that fact.

7. Senators having refrained from voting because of their pairs counted to make a.

8. A Senator held as present to make a, as disclosed by the roll call just had for the purpose of ascertaining that fact.

9. Counting a, by adding names of Senators who announced they were paired.

10. With the addition of names of Senators present and paired and withheld their votes a, was present.

11. Against counting a.

12. That with the addition of the names of Senators present and paired and withheld their votes a, was not present.

13. Not practice of Senate to count as present those Senators who announce pairs and refrain from voting to make a,

14. May count a, if necessary.

15. A Senator may suggest the absence of a, at any time,

16. Being present on last roll call, its absence can not immediately be suggested, no business having intervened.

17. May not call for a, no business having Intervened, discussion not being business.

18. A, being present on last roll call, its absence may not immediately be suggested, no business having intervened.

19. A, was present as disclosed by the last roll call had for the purpose of ascertaining that fact.

20. Point of order that no quorum was present can not be made without consent of Senator holding the floor.

21. If absence of a, is suggested while the Senate is acting under a unanimous consent agreement the roll may be called.

22. A Senator may take another Senator off his feet at any time to suggest the absence of a.

23. A, not necessary on vote to make a bill a special order.

24. On compelling the attendance of absent Senators, a quorum being present.

25. A joint resolution may be signed when a quorum is not present.

26. On question of adjournment without day, a quorum lacking, the declsions differ.

27. Can not compel attendance of absent Senators, no quorum being present, in absence of a rule.

28. May compel attendance of absent Senators, etc.

29. While requesting a Senator to assign reasons for not voting, no quorum being present, not in order to adjourn.

30. May not reconsider a vote in absence of.

31. May not raise a point of order, no quorum being present, pending execution of order to compel attendance of absent Senators.

32. Less than a, may take a recess.

33. Less than a, can not take a recess.

34. Messages from the President or House of Representatives may be received, no quorum being present.

35. Calling of the roll to ascertain if a, is present at the opening sessions of each Congress.

1. WHAT NUMBER CONSTITUTES.

The first clause of section 5 of Article I, of the Constitution, provides: SECTION 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

Clause 2 of Rule III says:

2. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn. 38th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 401.]

MAY 4, 1864.

On May 4, 1864, the following resolution was passed-yeas 26, nays 11: “Resolved, That a quorum of the Senate consists of a majority of the Senators duly chosen."

53d Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 67.]

OCTOBER 11, 1893.

Mr. Wolcott raised a question of order, viz, that under the fifth section of Article I of the Constitution it required a majority of all the Senators to which the several States are entitled to constitute a quroum, and therefore the number present should be 45. The Vice President (Mr. Stevenson) overruled the question of order, stating that in his decision he would be governed by the rule, viz, Rule 3, clause 2, which provides that "a quorum shall consist of a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn." (See Cong. Record, pp. 2395, 2396.)

An appeal from this decision was laid on the table; yeas 38, nays 5.

2. IN IMPEACHMENT TRIALS, SAME AS, OF THE SENATE. 58th Cong., 3d sess.; J., pp. 364–365.]

FEBRUARY 23, 1905.

A quorum of the Senate in an impeachment trial is a quorum of the Senate itself and not merely a quorum of the Senators sworn for the trial. Decision of Orville H. Platt, Presiding Officer in the impeachment proceedings against Judge Charles Swain, United States district judge for the northern district of Florida, on a point of order raised by Mr. Teller that a quorum for the trial must be the same as the quorum of the Senate. (See Cong. Record, p. 3176.)

3. THE READING OF THE JOURNAL CAN NOT BE INTERRUPTED BY MAKING THE POINT OF ORDER THAT NO, IS PRESENT.

61st Cong., 2d sess.]

APRIL 22, 1910.

The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr Sherman). The Secretary will read the Journal of yesterday's proceedings.

The Secretary proceeded to read the Journal of yesterday's proceedings, and was interrupted by

Mr. BACON. Mr. President, I rise to a point of order. On yesterday the Senate by a very large majority voted to meet at 11 o'clock to-day. By actual count in the Senate there are 21 Senators now present. I make the point of order that there is no

quorum present.

Mr. LA FOLLETTE. It might be added that those who were most active in securing this early hour of meeting are not now present.

Mr. BACON. They are now absent, and probably will be during a large part of the day.

The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). The Secretary must conclude the reading of the Journal. The point can be raised before the Journal is approved, of course, but the rule provides

Mr. BACON. If the Chair will pardon me and hear the suggestion, I respectfully suggest that it is important that those who are to pass upon the question of the correctness of the Journal should be present when it is read, and that nothing can be done in the absence of a quorum, it makes no difference what the action is. There is no legal action by the Senate when there is not a quorum present.

The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). The rules provide that nothing can interrupt the reading of the Journal when it has once been begun. The point of no quorum can not be raised before the reading of the Journal is concluded. The Chair thinks that the reading of the Journal, after it has been commenced, must be concluded, except by unanimous consent.

Mr. BACON. I, of course, will have to bow to the decision of the Chair, but I trust that will not be taken as a final ruling, so as to constitute a precedent. I am thoroughly satisfied to the contrary.

The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). Does the Chair understand the Senator from Georgia to request unanimous consent to dispense with the further reading of the Journal?

Mr. BACON. I can not consistently do that, because I do not think anything can be done; I do not think any unanimous consent can be given in the absence of a quorum.

The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). The rule expressly provides that nothing shall interrupt the reading of the Journal.

Mr. BACON. There is another rule which provides that whenever the fact is brought to the attention of the Senate that no quorum is present, nothing must be done until the presence of a quorum has been ascertained.

The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). But the Chair thinks that under the former rule that can not be brought to the attention of the Chair while the Journal is being read.

Mr. BACON. I do not think I can even appeal in the absence of a quorum.

The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). It is a matter of little consequence, except that the Chair wants to obey the rules of the Senate. That is the only thought the Chair has in mind.

Mr. BACON. It is for that reason that I do not ask for unanimous consent and I do not appeal, because I do not think either proceeding would be in order.

The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). The Chair, then, will direct the Secretary to finish the reading of the Journal, but before action thereon he will at once have the roll called.

Mr. BACON. Suppose, then, a Senator who is not present desires to know whether the Journal is correct, would it be read again for his benefit?

The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). Only by unanimous consent.

Mr. BURROWS. Mr. President, let me suggest to the Senator that Rule III provides: "The reading of the Journal shall not be suspended except by unanimous consent."