QUESTIONS OF ORDER, &c., DECIDED BY THE SPEAKER At the second session of the thirtieth Congress. DECEMBER 21, 1848.-[Pages 135, 136.] Mr. Charles E. Stuart moved that the vote by which the said resolution was passed be reconsidered. Mr. Stuart proceeded to debate the question; when Mr. Collamer raised the question of order, that inasmuch as the resolutions, giving rise to debate, were to lie over one day, the question of reconsideration must lie over also. The Speaker sustained the point of order, and decided that a debate on the motion to reconsider could not be allowed to interrupt the call of the States for resolutions prescribed by the rules, but must be postponed until to-morrow, in the same manner as an original debate on the resolution would have been. From this decision Mr. Charles J. Ingersoll appealed. And the question was put, "Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?" And decided in the affirmative, on a count by tellers. So the decision of the Chair was sustained. JANUARY 3, 1849.-[Pages 175, 176.] . Mr. Stanton asked that the message received from the President of the United States yesterday, and now on the Speaker's table, be laid before the House. The Speaker stated that, as the hour had not arrived when a motion to proceed to the business on the Speaker's table would be in order, the message could only be laid before the House by unanimous consent. From this decision Mr. Stanton appealed; and after a statement of the grounds of his appeal, followed by a statement, by the Speaker, of the reasons of his decision, the appeal was withdrawn. JANUARY 8, 1849.-[Page 211.] As soon as the Journal of Saturday had been read, The Speaker said, the House will remember that the vote on the passage of the bill for the relief of the representatives of Antonio Pacheco, was originally made up by the Clerk— ayes 90, noes 89; and this record having been handed to the Speaker, and by him announced to the House, the Speaker proceeded to make some remarks upon the bill, preparatory to giving the vote contemplated in such cases by the rules of the House. While in the act of explanation, the Speaker was interrupted by the Clerk, who stated that, on a more careful count, the vote was found to be-ayes 91, noes 89. The intervention of the Speaker was, therefore, no longer allowable, and the bill was declared to have passed the House. The Chair takes the earliest opportunity to state to the House this morning, that, upon a re-examination of the yeas and nays, the Clerk has ascertained that an error still existed in the announcement of the vote on Saturday. The vote actually stood ayes 89, noes 89. The correction will now accordingly be made on the Journal; and a case is immediately presented, agreeably to the 12th rule of the House, for the interposition of the Speaker's vote. At this stage of the proceedings, the Speaker was interrupted by Mr. Farrelly, who rose. and called for a further correction of the Journal, stating that he voted in the negative on Saturday last, and his vote appeared not to have been recorded. The Speaker decided that it was the right of the gentleman from Pennsylvania to have his vote recorded, if he voted on Saturday last; and the correction was accordingly made. The vote was then finally announced-yeas 89, nays 90. The Speaker stated that he came into the House this morning with the full expectation of giving his vote upon this bill, and prepared to give his reasons for the vote. But, as the question now stood, although it might be in his power to vote agreeably to the letter of the 12th rule, it was, in his opinion, not within the contemplation or intention of the rule that he should vote. The rule contemplated that the Speaker should be allowed to vote whenever he could make a difference in the result, by passing or preventing the passage of the proposition before the House. Under present circumstances, the Speaker's vote could not, in any way, affect the decision of the House. The bill was already lost by the vote, as it stood. A vote against the bill would only increase the majority by which it was defeated; while a vote in favor of the bill would only make a tie, and the bill would still be lost. The Speaker, therefore, did not consider himself called upon to give any vote on the subject. JANUARY 15, 1849.-[Page 247.] Mr. Stephens moved that the rules be suspended, for the purpose of enabling him to move that the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union be discharged from the further consideration of the annual message of the President of the United Stateswhich motion was agreed to-two-thirds voting in favor thereof. The said motion was accordingly made; and The House proceeded to the consideration of the said annual message from the President of the United States; when Mr. McClernand rose for the purpose of debate; and Mr. Stephens claiming the floor, The Speaker stated that Mr. Stephens, by parliamentary courtesy, was entitled to the floor on the message which, on his motion, had been brought before the House. Mr. McClernand objected to the decision of the Chair. The Speaker submitted the question to the decision of the House. The House decided that Mr. Stephens was entitled to the floor. JANUARY 29, 1849.-[Page 330.] Mr. Embree moved that the rules be suspended, for the purpose of enabling him to offer the following resolution: Resolved, That the House will to-day, at 1 o'clock, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, for the purpose of taking up and considering House bill No. 653, to reduce the rates of postage on letters and newspapers, to establish uniform postal charges, and to correct abuses of the franking privilege. And the question being put, Shall the rules be suspended? It was decided in the affirmative-two-thirds voting in favor thereof,{Nas.. The rules being suspended, Mr. Embree accordingly offered the said resolution, which was read; when 120 47 Mr. Howell Cobb rose to a point of order, submitting that the resolution could not be entertained, because the special orders, which had heretofore been made by the House, could not be set aside by a resolution of this character. The Speaker said, that as to the effect of the resolution, the chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union must decide, and that his decision would be subject to the judgment of the committee; that the House, by a vote of two-thirds, had suspended all rules to allow the resolution to be introduced, and the Chair could not overrule that decision; but that, as the resolution contemplated a change of the order of business, a vote of two-thirds would still be required for its adoption. From this decision Mr. Cobb appealed. And the question being put, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House? It was decided in the affirmative. So the decision of the Chair was sustained. FEBRUARY 6, 1849.-[Page 382.] The said vote having been reconsidered, The question recurred on agreeing to the motion made by Mr. Vinton, that the said bill be recommitted to the committee, with instructions to inquire into the expediency of provi ding that where the salaries now allowed by law to any district judge of the United States is less than two thousand dollars, the same shall be raised to the sum of two thousand dollars, from and after the first day of January, in the year eighteen hundred and fortynine." Mr. Howell Cobb moved the following amendment to the instructions: "And that the committee be also instructed to inquire into the expediency of equalizing the salary of the marshals and district attorneys of the United States." Mr. Toombs raised a question of order as to these instructions, and the instructions beretofore proposed. The Speaker decided that it was now too late to raise a question of order as to the original in structions, as they had been received without objection when the bill was before under consideration, and had become a part of the Journal of the House. The original in. structions, the Chair further stated, though not relating strictly to the particular provisions of the bill, were pertinent to its general subject. The only question of order now before the House was in regard to the amendment to the instructions. The Chair ruled that amendment out of order, on the ground of irrelevancy, under the fifty-fifth rule of the House. The bill which it was proposed to recommit with these instructions, related to a judicial salary, and the original instructions, on which the Chair had already remarked, went no further. From this decision Mr. Howell Cobb appealed; when Mr. Ashmun moved that the appeal from the decision of the Chair be laid on the table; which motion was agreed to. So the appeal was laid on the table. FEBRUARY 22, 1849.-[Page 503.] Mr. Sibley then moved that the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union be discharged from the further consideration of the said bill from the Senate, (No. 152,) to establish the Territorial government of Minesota; which motion was agreed to. The House proceeded to the consideration of the said bill from the Senate, (No. 152,) and the amendments thereto reported by Mr. Caleb B. Smith, from the Committee on the Territories. The question being upon agreeing to the said amendments, Mr. Sibley moved the previous question. Mr. Boyden raised the point of order, that a delegate from a Territory not having a right to vote, clearly had not the right to move the previous question. The Speaker stated that, by the act of March 3, 1817, it is provided: "That in every Territory of the United States in which a temporary government has been, or hereafter shall be, established, and which, by the ordinance of Congress of the 13th of July, 1787, or of any subsequent act of Congress, passed, or to be passed, now hah, or hereafter shall have, the right to send a delegate to Congress, such delegate shall be elected every second year, for the same term of two years for which members of the House of Representatives of the United States are clected; and in that House each of the said delegates shall have a seat, with a right of debating, but not of voting." It is clear that the gentleman from Wisconsin has no right to vote. The Chair has had some doubt whether the gentleman has the right to make a motion. It has, however, been the uniform practice of the House to allow delegates to make motions. The gentleman from Wisconsin himself made the motion to suspend the rules for the purpose of bringing the question before the House. That is a motion quite as important as the previous question, as it sets aside all the rules of the House relating to the order of business. Gentlemen from the Territories are habitually called for petitions and resolutions, under an express rule of the House, and always have been allowed to move the reference of them. The Chair believes, upon the whole, that delegates from the Territories could not subserve the purposes for which they are sent here, unless they have the right to make motions; and as the law does not expressly deny them that right, the Chair is disposed to accord to them the largest liberty. He therefore decides the motion to be in order. From this decision of the Chair Mr. Boyden appealed. And the question being put, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House? It was decided In the affirmative. FEBRUARY 27, 1849.-[Page 540.] Mr. Meade, by unanimous consent, in pursuance of previous notice, obtained leave and introduced a bill (No. 798) to establish a branch mint of the United States in California, and for other purposes; which was read a first and second time. Mr. Meade moved that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, and that it be made the special order of the day for to-morrow. Mr. Pollock moved the previous question. And, upon inquiry being made, the Speaker stated that, if the previous question was sus tained, the question would first be on the motion to commit the bill, and if that failed, the question would then be on the passage of the bill. Mr. Dickey insisted, as a point of order, that the bill must go to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, on the ground that it contained an appropriation, inasmuch as it established the salaries of certain officers. The Speaker stated that the bill might establish salaries without containing an appropri ation to pay them; and, in the opinion of the Chair, there was no appropriation in the bill. From this decision of the Chair Mr. Rumsey appealed. The question was stated, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House? Pending which, On motion by Mr. Caleb B. Smith, The House resolved itself into Committee of the Whole House. MARCH 1, 1849.-[Pages 574, 575.] The House having under consideration the amendments of the Senate to the bill (No. 691) making appropriations for the current and contingent expenses of the Indian department. &c. all which having been acted on, except the 10th and last amendment of the Senate; which was read. To the 10th amendment of the Senate, an amendment was reported by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union; which was also read. The question being upon agreeing to the amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, Mr. Brodhead asked a division of the question, so as to take a separate vote on each branch of the said amendment. The Speaker stated that the question was not divisible. From this decision Mr. Brodhead appealed. The question was stated, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House? Mr. Petit moved that the vote by which the amendment proposed by Mr. Thompson was agreed to be reconsidered. Mr. Petit, in the course of debate on the motion to reconsider, was called to order by Mr. McClernand for irrelevancy. The Speaker decided that the gentleman from Indiana was not exceeding the limits of debate, hitherto allowed on the pending question. From this decision of the Chair Mr. McClernand appealed. Mr. Root moved that the appeal be laid upon the table; which motion was not agreed to. The question was then stated, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House? And being put, It was decided in the negative. So the House decided that Mr. Petit was not in order; and he thereupon took his seat. MARCH 3, 1849.-[Page 669.] On motion of Mr. Wentworth, the House proceeded to the consideration of the motion made by Mr. Vinton on the 27th of February last, to reconsider the vote by which the bell from the Senate (No. 13) entitled "An act to grant to the State of Illinois a right of way through the public lands of the United States, and for other purposes," was read the third time. After debate, Mr. Gentry, in the course of debate, was called to order by the Speaker for personalities. But no objection having been made, he proceeded with his remarks in order. Subsequently, Mr. Henley rose and insisted that the gentleman from Tennessee having been pronounced out of order by the Chair, should be required to take his seat, and shoud not be permitted to proceed without a vote of the House. The Speaker decided that the objection came too late; the gentleman from Tennessee having been already permitted to proceed in order by the general consent of the House. From this decision of the Chair Mr. Henley appealed. The question was stated, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House? And being put, It was decided in the affirmative, Yeas 139 |