54th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 226.]

APRIL 7, 1896.

On motion by Mr. Hawley to further amend the post-office appropriation bill by inserting, after line 25, page 7, the following:

Provided, That hereafter all postage stamps required shall be obtained under the provisions of section thirty-seven hundred and nine of the Revised Statutes, and the contracts shall be awarded to the lowest and best bidder for the interests of the Government, and no bids of any branch of the Government shall be considered.

Mr. Mills raised the question of order, viz: That the amendment proposed general legislation to a general appropriation bill; and by Mr. Faulkner that it changes existing law.

The Vice-President (Mr. Stevenson) sustained the question of order. (See Cong. Record, p. 3672.)

54th Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 160.]

FEBRUARY 27, 1897.

On motion by Mr. Butler to further amend the post-office bill by inserting, after the word “dollars,” in lines 8 and 9, page 6, the words: Provided, That the Postmaster-General shall not pay more for the transportation of the railway mail than is paid by the express companies for like service.

Mr. Allison raised a question of order, viz: That the amendment proposed general legislation to a general appropriation bill and was not in order under rule 16. clause 3.

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Carter in the chair) sustained the point of order. (See Cong. Record, pp. 2407-2413.)

56th Cong., 2d sess.; J., pp. 184, 193.]

FEBRUARY 18-20, 1901.

On the question to agree to the following reported amendment, viz: On page 16, beginning with line 5, insert the following:

For transportation of mail by pneumatic tube or other devices, by purchase or otherwise, $500,000; and all existing provisions of law prohibiting additional contracts for pneumatic-tube service are hereby repealed.

On the question to agree to the amendment,

Mr. Allison raised a question or order, viz, that the amendment proposed general legislation to a general appropriation bill, and was therefore not in order, under the third clause of rule 16 of the Senate.

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Beveridge) submitted the question to the Senate: Is the amendment in order? Adjourned.

Ib.; J., p. 193.]

FEBRUARY 20, 1901.

The question recurring on the point of order raised by Mr. Allison, viz, that the reported amendment on page 16, beginning with line 5, was general legislation to a general appropriation bill, and was therefore not in order under the third clause of rule 16.

On the question, Is the amendment in order? it was determined in the negative. (See Cong. Record, pp. 2569-2570, 2574-2582, 2684, 2685.)

58th Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 344.]

APRIL 6, 1904.

The question being on the amendment proposed by Mr. Quarles on page 30 of the bill, relating to rural free delivery,

The amendment was ruled out under a question of order raised by Mr. Lodge, that it proposed general legislation to a general appropriation bill, and also not being estimated for, was not in order under rule 16 of the Senate. (See Cong. Record, pp. 4360, 4373.)

60th Cong., 2d sess.]

FEBRUARY 18, 1909. The post-office appropriation bill (H. R. 26305) being under consideration, and the reported amendment, on page 18, after line 6, having been read as follows:

That the Postmaster-General be, and is hereby, authorized and directed to readjust annually the compensation to be paid for the transportation of mails on railroad routes from and after the 1st day of July, 1910, upon the conditions and at the rates provided by law, the average daily weight to be ascertained, in every case, by the actual simultaneous weighing of the mails for thirty-five successive days, commencing on such date as the Postmaster-General may designate each year, and the result to be stated and verified in such form and manner as the Postmaster-General may direct, and the whole number of days included in the weighing period shall be used as a divisor for obtaining the average daily weight. In connection with such weighing and readjustment, where there are two or more routes by which the mails may be dispatched between important points with equal facility, etc.

Mr. La Follette made a point of order that the amendment was general legislation on a general appropriation bill.

The Vice-President (Mr. Fairbanks) sustained the question of order and ruled it out. (See Cong. Record, pp. 2624-2627.)

11. NOT MOVED BY DIRECTION OF A STANDING OR SELECT COMMITTEE AND NOT ESTIMATED FOR.

56th Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 193.]

FEBRUARY 20, 190 1.

Mr. Hale raised a further question of order on the amendment "for the transportation of mail by pneumatic tube or other devices," viz: That the amendment added a new item of appropriation not moved by direction of a standing or select committee of the Senate, or proposed in pursuance of an estimate of the head of some one of the Departments, and was therefore not in order under the first clause of Rule 16. (See Cong. Record, pp. 2694-2697.)

Ib.; J., p. 197.]

FEBRUARY 21, 1901.

The question being on the point of order raised by Mr. Hale, viz: That the amendment proposed by Mr. Mason on page 16, beginning after line 4, added a new item of appropriation not moved by a standing or select committee of the Senate or proposed in pursuance of an estimate of the head of some one of the Departments, and was therefore not in order under the first clause of Rule 16. The President pro tempore (Mr. Frye) sustained the point of order and ruled that the amendment was not in order. (See Cong. Record, p. 2734.)

58th Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 366.]

APRIL 11, 1904.

The question being on the amendment proposed by Mr. Culberson at the end of the bill, providing for the creation of a commission to investigate the conduct and expenditures of the Post-Office Department,

The amendment was ruled out on a point of order raised by Mr. Lodge, by Mr. Frye, President pro tempore, under Rule 16, that it was not estimated for or recommended by a standing or select committee of the Senate. (See Cong. Record, pp. 4613-4629.)

12. CREATES ADDITIONAL LIABILITY.

31st Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 223.]

FEBRUARY 26, 1851.

An amendment by Mr. Rusk, granting to Josiah Snow, Anson Bangs, and their associates composing the Atlantic and Pacific Telegraph Company, a right of way over the public lands," etc.,

An objection being made that it would create additional liability and against rule 30.

The question being submitted to the Senate, it was decided not to be in order. (See Cong. Globe, p. 713.)

The Senate, by a vote of 33 yeas to 18 nays, decided that the amendment relating to the Hennepin Canal to the river and harbor bill was not general legislation upon a general appropriation bill within the meaning of rule 29, and by a vote of 33 to 17 the above amendment was decided to be relevant. (See Cong. Record, pp. 5676-5686.)

55th Cong., 3d sess.; J., p. 149.]

On motion by Mr. Frye,

FEBRUARY 24, 1899.

The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill (H. R. 11795) "making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes;" and the reported amendments having been further agreed to in part and in part amended, and as amended agreed to, and the bill further amended on the motion of Mr. Frye, from the Committee on Commerce.

On the question to agree to the following reported amendment, viz: On page 91, beginning with line 21, insert the following:

SEC. 3. That the President of the United States is hereby authorized to acquire, for and in the behalf of the United States, such portion of territory now belonging to Costa Rica and Nicaragua, or such rights, easements, or privileges therein or connected therewith as may be desirable and necessary to excavate, construct, control, and defend a canal of such depth and capacity as will be sufficient for the movements of ships of the greatest tonnage and draft now in use, from a point near Greytown on the Caribbean Sea, by way of Lake Nicaragua, to Brito on the Pacific Ocean; and such sum as may be necessary to make such purchase is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.

Mr. Rawlins raised a question of order, viz, that the amendment proposed general legislation to a general appropriation bill and was therefore not in order under the third clause of Rule 16 of the Senate.

The Vice-President (Mr. Hobart) submitted the question to the Senate, Is the amendment in order?

After debate,

It was determined in the affirmative-yeas 51, nays 7.

So it was decided the amendment was in order.

Mr. Vest raised a question of order, viz, that the amendment was not germane or relevant to the subject-matter of a bill making appropriations for rivers and harbors, and was therefore not in order under the third clause of Rule 16. The Vice-President submitted the question to the Senate, Is the amendment in order?

It was determined in the affirmative-yeas 48, nays 12.

So it was decided that the amendment was germane and in order. (See Cong. Record, pp. 2286–2291.)

2. RELEVANT.

49th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 1055.]

JULY 6, 1886.

The Senate, by a vote of yeas 31, nays 9, decided that an amendment to the river and harbor appropriation bill for the purchase of the Sturgeon Bay and Lake Michigan Ship Canal and harbor of refuge, etc., was germane and relevant to the subject-matter of the bill. (See Cong. Record, pp. 6555, 6557.)

3. SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS A REJECTED AMENDMENT. 31st Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 244.]

MARCH 3, 1851.

Mr. Bradbury offered an amendment providing that the appropriations in this bill contained shall take effect upon and authorize the expenditure of only such surplus or excess as shall remain in the Treasury of the United States after deducting from the public revenues the sums necessary to meet the appropriations that have been made or shall be made by Congress to execute existing laws and liquidate private claims.

A question of order being raised, that it was substantially the same as the amendment which had been rejected.

The President pro tempore (William R. King) submitted the question to the Senate, Is the amendment in order?

It was decided in the affirmative-yeas 25, nays 24. (See Cong. Globe Appendix, pp. 359, 360.)

NOT IN ORDER.

4. GENERAL LEGISLATION.

AUGUST 16, 1890.

51st Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 469.] The Presiding Officer (Mr. Manderson) decided that the amendment to the river and harbor bill, and thereafter no Government pier or dock shall be leased to or permitted to be used by private persons otherwise than in common by all, under such regulations as the Secretary of War may prescribe, was general legislation to a general appropriation bill. (See Cong. Record, p. 8684.)

5. IRRELEVANT.

35th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 534.]

MAY 27, 1858.

The Senate had under consideration as in Committee of the Whole the bill (S. 343) "making appropriations for repairing the piers at the harbor of Sheboygan, Wisconsin ;" and Mr. Pugh offered an amendment proposing appropriations for twenty other harbors, and on motion by Mr. Davis, to amend the amendment proposed by Mr. Pugh, by inserting at the end thereof:

That all articles now on the free list be classed among the unenumerated articles, and be charged with a duty of twenty per cent ad valorem on all importations made after the first day of July, 1858.

Mr. Wilson made a question of order, whether the amendment proposed by Mr. Davis was in order.

The Vice-President (Mr. Breckinridge) in pursuance of the sixth rule, asked the sense of the Senate, whether the amendment was in order; and it was decided not to be in order. (See Cong. Globe, p. 2424; Cong. Globe Appendix,

pp. 465, 472-476.)

15. SUNDRY CIVIL.

IN ORDER

1. Not general legislation.

2. To carry out existing law.

3. Not estimated for, nor proposed by a standing or select committee, and not general legislation.

4. Under existing law and estimate of the department, and not general legislation.

5. Although reported by standing committee, claimed not in order because it had not been referred to a committee.

6. Provision for raising revenue and not to be offered in the Senate.

7. Recommended by the department, and by a committee.

8. Not private claims.

9. Private claims, but reported by a committee.

NOT IN ORDER

10. General legislation.

II. Not in pursuance of an estimate.

12. Not estimated for, nor recommended by a committee, nor to carry out a resolution of the Senate.

13. Not relevant.

14. Private claim, not arising under a treaty.

15. Because a measure relating to the revenue.

16. Not estimated for.

17. Not reported from a committee.

18. Not reported by a committee, nor estimated for.

19. Private claims, although some were reported by committees.

IN ORDER.

1. NOT GENERAL LEGISLATION.

45th Cong., 3d sess.; J., p. 416.]

FEBRUARY 28, 1879.

The Senate having under consideration the bill (H. R. 6471) “making appropriation for sundry civil expenses of the Government," etc., on the question to