YEAS AND NAYS. 1. A Senator on the call of the, may refuse to vote when paired with another Senator. 2. May not call for, when refused, after a quorum is disclosed by a roll call. 3. Decision of Chair that, were in order while a Senator was demanding recognition of the Chair but not stating object for which he desired recognition. 4. The, may be demanded even when a Senator addresses the Chair and before he has finished. 5. The, having been refused they can not again be asked for on the same question. 1. A SENATOR ON THE CALL OF THE, MAY REFUSE TO VOTE WHEN PAIRED WITH ANOTHER SENATOR. 36th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 720.] JUNE 20, 1860. The yeas and nays being ordered on a question, a Senator declined to vote on the ground that he was "paired" with another Senator. A question of order was raised as to his right to refuse to answer to his name when called, for the reason stated. The question being submitted to the Senate, it was decided that he had the right. (See Cong. Globe, p. 3191. See also Voting.) 2. MAY NOT CALL FOR, WHEN REFUSED, AFTER A QUORUM IS DISCLOSED BY A ROLL CALL. 61st Cong., 1st sess.] JUNE 28, 1909. The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). The roll call has disclosed that there is a quorum present. That is the first evidence that the Chair has had and that the Senate had. The yeas and nays having been refused, the Chair thinks that the demand can not be immediately submitted again. (See Cong. Record, p. 3889.) 3. DECISION OF CHAIR THAT, WERE IN ORDER WHILE A SENATOR WAS DEMANDING RECOGNITION OF THE CHAIR BUT NOT STATING OBJECT FOR WHICH HE DESIRED RECOGNITION. FEBRUARY 27, 1911. 61st Cong., 3d sess.; J., p. 210.] SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS. The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution submitted by Mr. Beveridge on January 9, 1911, declaring that William Lorimer was not duly and legally elected to a seat in the Senate of the United States by the Legislature of the State of Illinois. On the question to agree to the resolution, The yeas and nays were ordered. On motion by Mr. Bailey, The yeas and nays being desired by one-fifth of the Senators present. Mr. Stone raised a question of order, viz, that at the time the Presiding Officer was asking if there was a support of the demand for the yeas and nays he was demanding recognition of the Chair, and that therefore the decision of the Chair declaring the yeas and nays ordered was not in order. The Presiding Officer (Mr. Brandegee in the chair) overruled the question of order, and stated that he had recognized the Senator from Texas (Mr. Bailey); had put his demand for the yeas and nays; and inasmuch as the Senator from Missouri had not stated he arose to a question of order, it was not within his province to recognize him. From the decision of the Chair, Mr. Stone appealed to the Senate. The Presiding Officer (Mr. Brandegee) stated the question to be, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate? Mr. Owen demanded a division of the Senate; The yeas were 45 and the nays were 11, So it was decided that the decision of the Chair should stand as the judgment of the Senate. (See Cong. Record, pp. 3556-3557.) The following are the same proceedings as above, but taken from the Record. 61st Cong., 3d sess.] FEBRUARY 27, 1911. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS. The Senate resumed the consideration of the following resolution submitted by Mr. Beveridge January 9, 1911: "Resolved, That William Lorimer was not duly and legally elected to a seat in the Senate of the United States by the Legislature of the State of Illinois.” The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brandegee in the chair). The question is on agreeing to the resolution. Mr. BAILEY. On that I demand the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brandegee). Is there a second to the demand? Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. President, I desire to be heard Mr. OWEN. Mr. President The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brandegee). In the opinion of the Chair a sufficient number have seconded the demand, and the yeas and nays are ordered. Mr. STONE. Mr. President, I rise to a point of order. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brandegee). The Senator from Missouri will state his point of order. Mr. STONE. I wish it to appear in the Record that the Chair can not put the question on ordering the yeas and nays when Senators are addressing the Chair. Mr. BAILEY. In reply to that I want to say to the Senator from Missouri that by demanding the yeas and nays I had no purpose to prevent him or any other Senator from addressing the Senate, but I was recognized and made a privileged demand. The matter is still open for debate. Mr. STONE. I understand, and I had no thought of this immediate question before the Senate, but this same thing has been done on one or two previous rather noted occasions. I think it is an abuse of the power and right of the Chair. I wish to make a point of order. There is a question of order pending. The Chair had no right, under the parliamentary usage of the Senate and its rules, to take the question on ordering the yeas and nays when a Senator is addressing the Chair before the question was put. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brandegee). The Chair overrules the point of order. The Chair will submit the appeal of course. The Chair recognized the Senator from Texas, who demanded the yeas and nays. The Chair asked if there was a second, and, in the opinion of the Chair, there was, and the Chair declared that the yeas and nays were ordered. The Chair could not recognize Senators at that time, as he had recognized the Senator from Texas. The Chair understands now that the Senator from Missouri appeals from the ruling of the Chair. On that the question is, Shall the ruling of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate? Mr. OwEN. Mr. President, I desire the parliamentary question of order to be submitted formally to the Senate, so that everyone may clearly understand what the point of order is. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brandegee). As the Chair understands the question, it is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate? The Chair will state to the Senator from Missouri that if he had risen to a question of order and so stated he would have been recognized by the Chair. He did not rise to a question of order. The Chair was putting the demand of the Senator from Texas, and during that he could not recognize anybody else. The Chair understands that the Senator from Missouri appeals from the ruling of the Chair. Mr. STONE. I did rise to a question of order. The PRESIDING Officer (Mr. Brandegee). The Senator did not state it. Mr. STONE. How could the Chair know for what purpose I rose unless the Chair recognized me? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brandegee). The Senator did not state that he rose to a question of order. The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate? Mr. OWEN. On that I ask for a division. There were, on a division-ayes 45, noes 11. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The decision of the Chair is sustained by the Senate. (See Cong. Record, pp. 3556-3557.) 4. THE, MAY BE DEMANDED EVEN WHEN A SENATOR ADDRESSES THE CHAIR AND BEFORE HE HAS FINISHED. 62d Cong., 2d sess.] MAY 29, 1912. The metal schedule being under consideration and an amendment having been proposed by Mr. Lodge to an amendment submitted by Mr. Pomerene to the said bill, Mr. RAYNER. On that I ask for the yeas and nays. Mr. POMERENE. Mr. President The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gallinger). The Senator from Maryland demands the yeas and nays. Is there a second? The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. BACON. I raise the point of order that when a Senator addresses the Chair, even if the yeas and nays have been demanded, the question ought not to be put as to the yeas and nays until after the Senator has finished. How does anyone know whether or not it will be two hours before the yeas and nays are called, and the contemplation of the law is that the yeas and nays will be called for by those who are present at the time and who are going to participate? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gallinger). The present occupant of the Chair does not agree with the Senator from Georgia. The Senator from Ohio is recognized. (See Cong. Record, p. 7370.) 5. THE, HAVING BEEN REFUSED THEY CAN NOT AGAIN BE ASKED FOR ON THE SAME QUESTION. 62d Cong., 2d sess.] JULY 20, 1912. The sundry civil appropriation bill being under consideration, on a pending amendment the yeas and nays were asked for and refused. The PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE (Mr. Gallinger). The yeas and nays having been refused, the Chair is of opinion that the Senator can not again ask for them on the same question. (See Cong. Record, p. 9377.) |