The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). Section 1 of the rule to which the Senator refers reads: Unless the same be moved by direction of a standing or select committee of the Senate. The Chair would like to inquire whether this amendment is moved by direction of a standing committee. Mr. JONES. No; it is not, Mr. President. The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). Then the Chair thinks on that ground the amendment is not in order, and the Chair sustains the point of order. Mr. Jones offered two similar amendments and both were ruled out of order for the same reason. (See Cong. Record, p. 4633.) Mr. WORKS. I offer the amendment I send to the desk. APRIL 12, 1912. The SECRETARY. On page 38, line 17, after the words "Fort Leavenworth, Kans.," insert: For the construction of a general administration building at Fort Mason, San Francisco, Cal., to provide office accommodation for division headquarters, $200,000. Mr. DU PONT. I make the point of order that it is new legislation. The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). The point of order is sustained. (See Cong. Record, pp. 4633, 4640.) APRIL 12, 1912. Mr. Bacon submitted an amendment adding a new section as follows: Sec. 2. That the fourth section of the act of January twenty-first, nineteen hundred and three, entitled "An act to promote the efficiency of the militia, and for other purposes,” be amended by adding the following as a proviso thereto: "Provided, That the call for militia from any State shall be made by requisition made by the President upon the governor of said State, in which the number of troops required from such State shall be specified and the length of the service required of them.” Mr. Root. Mr. President, I find myself in entire agreement with the Senator from Georgia upon the question of the propriety and desirableness of continuing to follow the traditional custom in regard to the calling out of the militia; but there are many things to be said regarding the particular change of the statute which the Senator from Georgia proposes, many things which would probably have to be said regarding any kind of a change that we should make. It is a large subject, a subject that ought to be very fully considered, and I do not think that we can properly consider it now. Therefore I feel disposed to make a point of order against the amendment. Mr. BACON. I recognize that it is general legislation. I simply desire to say that I will introduce a bill to the same effect and ask that it be referred to the Committee on Military Affairs in order that the matter may have the consideration which the Senator from New York suggests. The VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. Sherman). The point of order raised by the Senator from New York is sustained. (See Cong. Record, p. 4641.) 62d Cong., 3d sess.] FEBRUARY 11, 1913 (legislative day). The Army appropriation bill being under consideration, The next amendment was, under the subhead "Retired officers," on page 12, line 13, after the sum $2,877,000," to insert: Provided, That hereafter when any officer who has been retired from active service and placed on the retired list on account of physical disability is found by an examining board, to be appointed by the Secretary of War, under the direction of the President, to be morally, physically, mentally, and professionally qualified for active service, the President may, in his discretion, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, reappoint such officer upon the active list of the Army as an extra officer of the arm or branch in which the officer was commissioned at the time of his retirement, in the grade and with the lineal rank he would have held had he not been retired: Provided further, That such officer shall continue as an extra officer only until such time as a vacancy shall occur in his grade and arm of the service, etc. Mr. CLARKE of Arkansas. Mr. President, it is not necessary to consume time to consider that amendment. I think it clearly out of order. It is general legislation. It is proposed to change the rule now applicable to retired officers and confer upon officers of that class the right to be reassigned to active service in the Army under certain conditions. If that is to be done at all, it ought to be done after the whole subject has been independently considered and worked out, so that we may know that it will not be used for purposes of partiality and preference. I think it is an exceedingly inappropriate provision to be included at this time; and I make the point of order that it is general legislation that can not now be considered in the face of objection. The PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE (Mr. Gallinger). The point of order is sustained. (See Cong. Record, p. 3135, 3136.) 11. NOT ESTIMATED FOR AND NOT REPORTED BY ANY COMMIT TEE. 46th Cong., 3d sess.; J., p. 119.] JANUARY 14, 1881. The amendment on the same bill that was ruled in order January 13, 1881 (J., p. 114), after debate had proceeded on its merits, was decided by the Senate not to be in order, not having been proposed in pursuance of an estimate of the head of some one of the departments. (See Cong. Record, pp. 624-628.) 62d Cong., 2d sess.] The Army appropriation bill being under consideration, AUGUST 14, 1912. The PRESIDENT pro tempore (Mr. Gallinger). The amendment will be stated. The SECRETARY. After line 6, on page 26, insert: Range for Field Artillery target practice: The sum of $50,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, appropriated by public resolution approved July eighth, nineteen hundred and twelve, for the expenses of the Organized Militia in participating in encampments with regular troops for field instruction, may be used for the acquisition, by purchase or condemnation, of the necessary land for a suitable range for Field Artillery target practice- the land to be of such general character as to permit its use for the instruction of troops of other arms, to be located within the eastern military division, and to be so situated as to present a high degree of availability for concentration of Field Artillery. Mr. WARREN. I make a point of order on that amendment. It is not estimated for and has not the recommendation of any committee. The PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE (Mr. Gallinger). Does the Senator from Pennsylvania desire to be heard on the point of order? Mr. OLIVER. I think I will not ask to be heard. The PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE (Mr. Gallinger). The point of order is sustained. (See Cong. Record, p. 10930.) 12. NOT REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ONE DAY BEFORE SUB MISSION. 55th Cong., 3d sess.; J., p. 199.] MARCH 3, 1899. On motion by Mr. Foraker to further amend the bill by adding at the end thereof the following: That the present Adjutant General of the Army shall during his term of office have the rank, pay, and allowances of a major general in the Army of the United States. Mr. Pettus raised a question of order, viz: That the amendment, not having been referred to the Committee on Appropriations at least one day before being submitted in the Senate, was not in order under clause 2 of Rule 16. The Vice President (Mr. Hobart) sustained the question of order and decided that the amendment was not in order. From the decision of the Chair Mr. Allen 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 42, nays 7. So the decision of the Chair was sustained. (See Cong. Record, pp. 2805–2807.) * 13. NOT REPORTED BY A STANDING OR SELECT COMMITTEE. 32d Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 234.] FEBRUARY 24, 1853. Amendment to amendment ruled out of order. (See Cong. Globe, p. 819.) 35th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 644.] JUNE 8, 1858. On motion by Mr. Houston, to amend the bill by inserting the following: Sec. And be it further enacted, That there be appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $75,426.30, to refund that amount paid by the State of Texas, for ranging service, which was expended for the protection of the frontier; and that the further amount of $12,518.21, which has been liquidated and is yet due to claimants, be, and is hereby, appropriated. A question was raised by Mr. Hunter, whether the amendment was in order under the thirtieth rule; and the President (Mr. Clay in the chair) decided that it was not in order. (See Cong. Globe, p. 2801.) 36th Cong., 1st sess.; J., pp. 569, 570.] JUNE 5, 1860. On motion by Mr. Lane, to amend the bill by inserting: For surveys of sites for defenses at or near the entrance of the Columbia River and for surveys of sites for defenses inside of Cape Flattery, and for commencing works, $100,000. A question of order was raised by Mr. Hunter, to wit: Was the amendment in order under the thirtieth rule? and the President (Mr. Foster in the chair) decided that it was not in order. On motion by Mr. Powell, to amend the bill by inserting: Sec.-. And be it further enacted, That the sum of $20,000 be, and is hereby, appropriated for the purpose of furnishing public quarters for the use of officers of the Army stationed at the extreme frontier posts within and on the borders of the Indian territories of the United States, under the direction of the War Department. A question of order was raised by Mr. Hunter, to wit: Was the amendment in order under the thirtieth rule? and the Chair decided that it was not in order. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 2633-2635.) 14. PRIVATE CLAIMS. 36th Cong., 1st sess.; J., pp. 569, 570.] JUNE 5, 1860. On motion by Mr. Johnson, of Arkansas, from the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia, to amend the bill by inserting: To enable the Secretary of War to pay David Waldo for damages sustained by him on account of the nonfillment on the part of the Government of a contract made with him by the War Department in eighteen hundred and fifty for delivering corn at Fort Laramie, $9,936. A question of order was raised by Mr. Hunter, to wit: Was the amendment in order under the thirtieth rule, it being a private claim? and the President (Mr. Foster in the chair) decided that it was not in order. From this decision Mr. Johnson, of Arkansas, appealed; and, On the question, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate? It was determined in the affirmative; yeas 21, nays 17. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 2634, 2635.) 36th Cong., 2d sess.; J., pp. 321, 322.] FEBRUARY 26, 1861. On motion by Mr. Lane, from the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia, to amend the bill by inserting, at the end of the first section: For the payment of the coupons outstanding and now unpaid accruing between the first day of January, eighteen hundred and fifty-four, and the sixteenth day of August, eighteen hundred and fifty-six, upon the bonds of the State of California, issued for the payment of expenses incurred in the suppression of Indian hostilities prior to the first day of January, eighteen hundred and fifty-four, the redemption of which bonds was authorized by acts of Congress of August five, eighteen hundred and fifty-four, August eighteen, eighteen hundred and fifty-six, and June twenty-three, eighteen hundred and sixty, $177,196.23; said coupons, upon being certified by the Third Auditor of the Treasury to be those designated by this section, to be paid by the Secretary of War to the holder or holders thereof. A question of order was raised by Mr. Fessenden, whether the proposed amendment was in order under the thirtieth rule, it being a private claim. The President (Mr. Clark in the chair) submitted the question of order to the decision of the Senate. Is the proposed amendment in order under the thirtieth rule? It was determined in the negative. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 1216, 1217.) 40th Cong., 3d sess.; J., p. 340.] FEBRUARY 24, 1869. The Army appropriation bill being under consideration, Mr. Sumner proposed an amendment as follows: And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of the Treasury be authorized and required to audit and fix the interest accounts of Maine and Massachusetts for advances made by Massachusetts, then including Maine, for the United States during the war of eighteen hundred and twelve to eighteen hundred and fifteen with Great Britain, etc. Mr. Grimes raised a question of order that the amendment was a provision for a private claim, and therefore not in order under Rule 30. The President (Mr. Pomeroy in the chair) submitted the question of order to the Senate. Pending debate the Senate took a recess and then adjourned. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 1518, 1519.) Ib.; J., pp. 347, 348.] FEBRUARY 25, 1869. Question being submitted, Is amendment in order? yeas 19, nays 21; so the amendment was not in order. (See Cong. Globe, p. 1586.) DEFICIENCY. See GENERAL DEFICIENCY. 4. DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR. IN ORDER 1. Not general legislation. 2. Increasing an appropriation but subsequently reported from a committee. 3. Private claim. 4. Not a private claim because it was competent to change from fees of a consul to a salary. NOT IN ORDER 5. General legislation. 6. Not from a standing committee; nor estimated for. IN ORDER. 1. NOT GENERAL LEGISLATION. 53d Cong., 3d sess.; J., p. 103.] FEBRUARY 9, 1895. The question being on the following amendment to the Diplomatic and Consular appropriation bill reported by the Committee on Appropriations, viz, on page 9, after line 8, insert the following: Construction of telegraph cable between the United States and the Hawaiian Islands: The President is hereby authorized to contract for the entire work of laying a telegraphic cable between the United States and the Hawaiian Islands and to direct the prosecution of such work whenever such a contract shall be made, and as a part of the cost of such cable the sum of $500,000 is hereby appropriated, said cable to be owned and operated by the United States Government. After debate, Mr. Blackburn, on behalf of Mr. Mills, raised a question of order, viz: First, that the amendment added a new item of appropriation not needed to carry out any existing law or treaty stipulation and not in accord with any act or resolution passed by the Senate at this session, and not moved by direction of a standing or select committee, nor proposed in pursuance of an estimate of the head of a department; second, that the amendment proposed general legislation to a general appropriation bill and was not germane or relevant to the subject matter contained in the bill, and hence was not in order under the first and third clauses of Rule 16. The Vice President (Mr. Stevenson) submitted the question to the Senate, Is the amendment in order? and it was determined in the affirmative; yeas 36, nays 25. (See Cong. Record, pp. 1978-1986.) 2. INCREASING AN APPROPRIATION, BUT SUBSEQUENTLY REPORTED FROM A COMMITTEE. 50th Cong., 1st sess.; J., pp. 926-932.] JUNE 5-6, 1888. On motion by Mr. Call to amend the bill by striking out in line 40, page 3, the words "Paraguay and Uruguay" and inserting after line 44 the words, minister resident and consular general at Uruguay and Paraguay, $7,500. Mr. Hale raised a question of order, viz, that the amendment increased an appropriation contained in the bill and was not within the exceptions in clause 1, Rule XVI, and therefore could not be received. The President pro tempore (Mr. Ingalls) sustained the point of order and decided that the amendment could not be received. From the decision of the Chair Mr. Call appealed to the Senate; and On the question, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate? After debate, On motion by Mr. Hoar that the appeal lie on the table, The yeas were 13 and the nays 13. Senate adjourned. On the following day, the question recurring on the motion of Mr. Hoar that the appeal lie on the table, Mr. Hale withdrew the question of order and the amendment was agreed to, the Committee on Foreign Relations having reported it favorably upon that day. (See Cong. Record, pp. 4898–4910, 4937.) 3. PRIVATE CLAIM. 31st Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 232.] FEBRUARY 28, 1851. An amendment reported from the Committee on Finance for the payment of a judgment recovered in a suit brought against Lieut. Col. D. D. Mitchell by Manuel X. Harmony, etc., for $98,055.38 was objected to as a private claim, but was decided to be in order; yeas 24, nays 21. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 805-811.) |
