resulting in disability or death, to employees of common carriers by railroad engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, or in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.

Pending debate,

Mr. Culberson submitted the following order, viz:

"It is ordered, That consideration of S. 5382, 'to provide an exclusive remedy and compensation for accidental injuries, resulting in disability or death, to employees of common carriers by railroad engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, or in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes,' be, and is, postponed until December 2, 1912, and in the meantime it is recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary, and said committee is instructed to redraft the bill so as to conform to the following: "1. That it be made optional and cumulative instead of exclusive," etc. Mr. Sutherland raised a question of order, viz: That the motion is in contravention of the unanimous-consent agreement of April 18, 1912, as follows:

"It is agreed by unanimous consent that on Thursday, May 2, 1912, immediately upon the conclusion of the routine morning business, the Senate will proceed to the consideration of the bill (S. 5382) 'to provide an exclusive remedy and compensation for accidental injuries, resulting in disability or death, to employees of common carriers by railroad engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, or in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes,' and that a vote will be taken upon any amendments that may be pending or offered, and upon the bill itself to its disposition, before adjournment on that legislative day: Provided, That a motion shall be in order to postpone to a day certain the further consideration of the bill," and is therefore not in order.

The Vice President (Mr. Sherman) sustained the point of order. (See Cong. Record, pp. 5732, 5739.)

8. IF THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM IS SUGGESTED WHILE THE SENATE IS ACTING UNDER A, THE ROLL MAY BE CALLED. 62d Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 441.]

JULY 2, 1912.

THE CHEMICAL SCHEDULE.

On motion by Mr. Simmons,

The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the consideration of the bill (H. R. 20182) to amend an act entitled "An act to provide revenue, equalize duties, and encourage the industries of the United States, and for other purposes," approved August 5, 1909.

Pending debate,

Mr. Smoot raised a question as to the presence of a quorum.

Mr. Heyburn raised a question of order, viz: That under the unanimous-consent agreement to vote on the bill under consideration this calendar day, if a call of the Senate should disclose the fact that a quorum was not present, the unanimous-consent agreement would thereby be defeated, and therefore the raising of the question of the presence of a quorum was not in order.

The President pro tempore (Mr. Bacon) overruled the point of order and said: The Senator submitted his point of order, and the Chair will rule on it. The Chair understands the Senator from Idaho to make the point of order that under the unanimous-consent agreement there can be no question raised as to the presence of a quorum. The Chair is constrained to overrule that point. It is a fundamental proposition that a quorum is essential to the doing of business, and the rule is imperative that whenever that suggestion is made the roll shall be called. There is no exception to it and no variation from it. (See Cong. Record, pp. 8554, 8559.)

9. A, TO PROCEED TO THE CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN LEGISLATION AT THE CONCLUSION OF ROUTINE MORNING BUSINESS HAVING BEEN ENTERED INTO, A MOTION TO PROCEED TO THE CONSIDERATION OF ANOTHER AND DIFFERENT MATTER IS IN

ORDER.

62d Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 594.]

ALICE V. HOUGHTON.

AUGUST 21, 1912.

On motion by Mr. Martine, that the Senate proceed to consider the motion entered by him on April 8, 1912, to reconsider the vote of the Senate on the passage of the bill (S. 5137) for the relief of Alice V. Houghton.

Mr. Bristow raised a question of order, viz, that as a unanimous-consent agreement to proceed to the consideration of certain legislation immediately upon the conclusion of routine morning business having been entered into, a motion to proceed to the consideration of another and different matter was not in order.

The President pro tempore (Mr. Gallinger) submitted the question to the Senate, Is the motion in order?

It was determined in the affirmative. (See Cong. Record, pp. 11432, 11433, 11434.) 10. A, HAVING BEEN GIVEN IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE TO DISPENSE WITH THE READING OF A BILL, IT WOULD NOT BE COMPETENT TO RAISE THE QUESTION AGAIN IN THE SENATE. AUGUST 22, 1912.

The legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation bill being under consideration and by unanimous consent the reading of the bill was dispensed with in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. SIMMONS. I ask the Chair, when the bill gets into the Senate, if that unanimous consent would still be binding against the reading of the bill?

The PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE (Mr. Gallinger). The Chair is of the opinion that unanimous consent having been given to dispense with the reading of the bill, it would not be competent to raise the question again in the Senate. (See Cong. Record, p. 11514.)

11. A, CAN NOT BE RECONSIDERED OR WITHDRAWN.

62d Cong., 3d sess.]

JANUARY 10, 1913.

INTERSTATE SHIPMENT OF LIQUORS.

Mr. SMOOт. Was there a unanimous-consent agreement just entered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Clapp). There was. It was just agreed to.

Mr. SMOOT. I know there are a number of Senators out of the Chamber who did not expect it to come up at this time. I was in my seat, and if I had heard it read I would have objected to the unanimous-consent agreement. I therefore ask that it be reconsidered.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Clapp). The Chair understands that it is beyond the power of the Senate. The Chair may be mistaken in that view, but the Chair thinks that it is beyond the power of the Senate to change or interfere with a unanimousconsent agreement after it is made. (See Cong. Record, pp. 1324, 1325.)*

12. QUESTION WHETHER A, HAS BEEN AGREED TO MAY BE SUBMITTED TO THE SENATE.

JANUARY 10, 1918.

Mr. WILLIAMS. A parliamentary inquiry. Does it require unanimous consent to vacate the previous unanimous consent?

The PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE (Mr. Bacon). It can not be done.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I make the point of order, Mr. President, and I should like a ruling on it for the guidance of the Senate in the future. Perhaps, and for all I know, some

ruling may have been made upon the same point in the past. I do know that at the other end of the Capitol the request would not even be considered for one second; it would have been passed by upon the curt statement of the Chair that the House had already decided the question and that that announcement could not be reversed except by unanimous consent. A Member would be permitted to make request for unanimous consent to reconsider, and if that were objected to it would fall by the wayside. My only object in making the point of order is that we may have certain guidance for the future.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore (Mr. Bacon). On the question of order raised by the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Williams), the Chair would state that if this were asking to set aside a recognized unanimous-consent agreement the Chair would undoubtedly hold that that could not be done; but the Chair does not understand that to be the question.

The present occupant of the chair was not occupying the chair when the incident occurred which is now the subject matter of discussion, and was not in the Chamber. The Chair is informed, however, that the motion to resubmit is based upon the contention that there was an immediate objection to it, and a statement that it was not heard.

The Chair thinks the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Lodge) has correctly stated the practice of the Senate; but it has been the practice of the Senate, certainly within the administration of the late Vice President, whenever a result was announced by him, and Senators would challenge the correctness of it, stating that they had not agreed to it and had not had the opportunity to interpose an objection, in a very great many cases the Vice President has promptly said that he would again submit the question.

That, the Chair understands, is the nature of the proposition which is now made by the Senator from Utah. It involves the question whether or not it has been finally submitted to the Senate and agreed to by unanimous consent.

The Chair would not undertake to decide that for the Senate, but he thinks it is entirely competent for the Senate to determine whether or not there has or has not been unanimous consent. Therefore the Chair will submit to the Senate for its determination the question whether there has or has not been unanimous consent, and he will submit it in the form of a motion for resubmission, which would involve the same question. The motion for resubmission was agreed to. (See Cong. Record, pp. 1354, 1355, 1356; see also Cong. Record, Jan. 11, 1913, pp. 1388 to 1395.)

UNFINISHED BUSINESS.

1. A matter taken up after 2 o'clock p. m. becomes the.

2. When the question of the choosing of a President of the Senate pro tempore is pending the Presiding Officer may not lay before the Senate the. 3. A bill may be made the, by action of the Senate and may not annul a unanimous-consent agreement.

4. May not be displaced as, after being temporarily laid aside by unanimous consent by taking up for consideration another bill.

5. A demand for the "regular order" takes Senate back to the consideration of the.

6. The, not displaced when temporarily laid aside by a motion to take up another bill.

7. Although the, is temporarily laid aside, a motion to take up another bill, if carried, will displace it.

8. When the, is laid before the Senate it does not take a Senator from the floor.

9. A special order does not displace.

10. A special order may supersede the, when the latter has been displaced by a motion.

11. A bill may be made the, after 2 o'clock p. m. by a vote of the Senate and if temporarily laid aside still retains its place as,

1. A MATTER TAKEN UP AFTER 2 O'CLOCK P. M. BECOMES THE. 62d Cong., 1st sess.]

MAY 8, 1911. The House joint resolution 39, proposing an amendment to the Constitution providing that Senators shall be elected by the people of the several States, was announced as the next thing in order.

Pending the request for unanimous consent that the joint resolution be made the unfinished business,

The Vice President (Mr. Sherman) said: The opinion of the Chair is that the granting of unanimous consent amounts to a suspension of all rules, and that the Senate can practically do anything by unanimous consent, upon the theory that it thereby suspends the rules. Of course, a matter taken up after 2 o'clock becomes automatically the unfinished business, but the Chair thinks there are other modes in which it can be so made. (See Cong. Record, p. 1074.)

2. WHEN THE QUESTION OF THE CHOOSING OF A PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE PRO TEMPORE IS PENDING THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY NOT LAY BEFORE THE SENATE THE.

62d Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 62.]

MAY 11, 1911.

The question of the election of a President pro tempore of the Senate being under consideration, Mr. Stone raised a question of order, viz, that the hour of 4 o'clock having arrived, it was the duty of the Presiding Officer to lay before the Senate the unfinished business.

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Lodge) overruled the question of order, and decided that the business before the Senate was privileged and could not be interrupted by the unfinished business, or in any other way, except by the Senate laying aside the business before it or by adjourning or going into executive session, and that the present Presiding Officer occupied his position under a suspension of Rule I by the unanimous consent of the Senate, therefore during his occupancy of the chair no business is in order except that of choosing a President pro tempore. (See Cong. Record, pp. 1183, 1188, 1189.)

3. A BILL MAY BE MADE THE, BY ACTION OF THE SENATE AND MAY NOT ANNUL A UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT.

62d Cong., 1st sess.]

MAY 25, 1911.

In reply to an inquiry as to whether a certain bill might be made the unfinished business,

The Vice President (Mr. Sherman) said: It could, by action of the Senate, be made the unfinished business. There is no question about that. It could be made the unfinished business by the action of the Senate.

Mr. STONE. That would displace the joint resolution.

The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). Certainly, as the unfinished business; but it would not annul this unanimous-consent agreement that on a particular day it be disposed of. (See Cong. Record, p. 1593.)

4. MAY NOT BE DISPLACED AS. AFTER BEING TEMPORARILY LAID ASIDE BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT BY TAKING UP FOR CONSIDERATION ANOTHER BILL.

62d Cong., 2d sess.]

APRIL 18, 1912.

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY AND WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. SUTHERLAND. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill (S. 5382) to provide an exclusive remedy and compensation for accidental injuries, resulting in disability or death, to employees of common carriers by railroad engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, or in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes. The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Utah.

Mr. BACON. Mr. President

Mr. LODGE. The motion is not debatable.

Mr. BACON. I wish to ask a question. Does the Senator from Utah propose to take up the bill and make it the unfinished business?

Mr. SUTHERLAND. I can not make it the unfinished business. There is already a bill on the calendar that is the unfinished business.

Mr. BACON. But if the Senator makes a motion and it is carried by the Senate it displaces that bill.

Mr. SUTHERLAND. I think not, when that bill was laid aside by unanimous consent. Mr. BACON. If this bill is taken up and made the unfinished business, it undoubtedly displaces it.

Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, I rise to a question of order.

The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). The Senator will state it.

Mr. LODGE. A motion has been made to take up the compensation act. I do not understand that that displaces the unfinished business, because the unfinished business has already been laid aside by unanimous consent.

The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). It was temporarily laid aside. The Chair sees no way by which there can be anything else made the unfinished business to-day. The question is on agreeing to the motion made by the Senator from Utah.

Mr. BACON. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry.