In compliance with the requirements of section 26 of an act entitled 'An act to ratify and confirm an agreement with the Muskogee or Creek tribe of Indians, and for other purposes,' approved March 1, 1901 (31 Stat. L., 869), and in conformity with the prayer of the memorial of Isparhechar, referred to this committee by the Senate, the Committee on Indian Affairs herewith submits the following report and recommendation.'

"Then follows the statement of the case, and attention is called to the fact that the agreement of 1901 provides: 'That within two years from the ratification of said agreement the Senate shall make full determination of said claims.'

"In 1902 Isparhecher, ex-chief of the Creek Nation, on behalf of himself and other loyal Creek claimants, had submitted his memorial to the Senate, asking that it should proceed as soon as practicable, as provided by said act, to examine said claims and to award the amount alleged to be due. Said memorial was referred to the sub-committee. The committee recommended to the Senate the payment of $1,200,000 by its report of February 16, 1903, aforesaid, to be passed on by the Senate as an award. (S. Doc. 3088, 57th Cong., 2d sess.)

"The committee submitted to the Senate an amendment to the Indian appropriation bill in connection with this report, on page 33, after line 22, as follows: In pursuance to the provisions of section 26 of an act to ratify and confirm an agreement with the Muskogee (or Creek) tribe of Indians, and for other purposes, approved March 1, 1901, there is hereby awarded, as a final determination thereof, on the so-called 'loyal Creek claims' named in said section 25, the sum of $1,200,000, and the same is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and made immediately available, etc., and providing in the proposed item for attorney's fees.'"

This item will be found on page 2252 of the Congressional Record, February 16, 1903. It was quite thoroughly discussed on the floor of the Senate, and it was pointed out by a member of the Indian Committee (Mr. Quarles) that the action of the Senate would be an award of the United States, in the following language:

"It has occurred to me, sir, that the Senate ought to be advised as to the nature of this amendment, and that it ought not to be passed, coming as it does solely from the committee, leaving the Senate entirely in ignorance of the fact that in regard to this amendment, it is sitting as a court of arbitration and is not engaged in the ordinary method of legislation. Now, I rise to lay the facts before the Senate. This is a provision which arises out of the agree ment made with the Creek Nation in 1891, whereby it is provided that the Senate shall, within two years, sit in the capacity of a court of arbitration and decide upon this claim, which arises from several treaties made by this Government with the Creek Nation. The determination of the Senate upon this proposition will amount to an award, upon which an action will lie quite independent of the fact of this provision in the other House of Congress."

The Senate thereupon agreed to the item without objection. (See Cong. Record, 57th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 2252-2254.)

ATTENDANCE.

1. Letters requesting.

2. Earlier action to compel.

3. Motion to direct, may be laid on the table.

4. In earlier practice could not compel.

5. Motion directing Sergeant-at-Arms to compel, not debatable.

6. Motion to request, must precede motion to compel.

7. On compelling, when quorum is present.

8. Pending proceedings to compel, other business not in order.

9. The summons for, disobeyed.

10. Quorum necessary to reconsider vote directing Sergeant-at-Arms to compel.

11. The Dolph resolution seeking to compel, by force if necessary.

Section 5 of Article I of the Constitution provides: "Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as each House may provide.”

Section 6 of the same article reads: "The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House they shall not be questioned in any other place."

Jefferson's Manual, Sections VII and VIII, give the parliamentary law covering this subject, and following quite closely is the present Senate rule in force:

RULE V. "No Senator shall absent himself from the service of the Senate without leave.

"If, at any time during the daily sessions of the Senate, a question shall be raised by any Senator as to the presence of a quorum, the Presiding Officer shall forthwith direct the Secretary to call the roll and shall announce the result, and these proceedings shall be without debate.

Whenever upon such roll call it shall be ascertained that a quois not present, a majority of the Senators present may direct the eant-at-Arms to request, and, when necessary, to compel the atance of the absent Senators, which order shall be determined out debate; and pending its execution, and until a quorum shall resent, no debate nor motion, except to adjourn, shall be in order."

ETTERS REQUESTING.

Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 5.]

MARCH 11, 1789.

e attendance of absent Senators was requested by a circular letter signed e Senators present and addressed to each of the absentees. (See Abes, this volume.)

ARLIER ACTION TO COMPEL.

1 Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 489.]

MAY 15, 1798.

solved, That the Secretary of the Senate be directed to write to all such tors as are absent without leave, or whose leave of absence has expired, esting their immediate attendance.

th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 402.]

quorum of the Senate not being present,

motion of Mr. Eaton,

e following order was adopted and issued:

MAY 21, 1826.

dered, That the Sergeant-at-Arms forthwith summon and command the at members of the Senate to be and appear before the Senate immediately; hat he take all practicable means to enforce their attendance.

similar order was adopted May 29, 1830 (21st Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 354). Iarch 2, 1841, the Sergeant-at-Arms was directed to summon the absent pers (26th Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 272).)

Le practice of ". requesting" the attendance of Senators seems to have n August 6, 1850, when the Sergeant-at-Arms was directed "to request the dance, forthwith, of the absent Senators." No return was made, as the te immediately adjourned. The Journals reveal numerous cases where formal practice of requesting the attendance of Senators has been resorted There are several instances where motions and resolutions directing the eant-at-Arms to request the attendance of absent Senators have been deterd in the negative. (See Cong. Globe, 35th Cong., 1st sess.; Appendix, p. for a decision of the Chair on the question of calling for excuses.)

OTION TO DIRECT, MAY BE LAID ON THE TABLE.

5th Cong., 1st sess.; J., pp. 258, 259.]

MARCH 15, 1858.

he Senate had under consideration the bill (S. 161) for the admission of State of Kansas into the Union. Repeated motions were made that the ■te adjourn and they were repeatedly voted down. On such a motion, made Ir. Wade, the yeas were 6, the nays 24.

he Vice-President (Mr. Breckinridge) stated to the Senate that the number enators voting did not constitute a quorum of the Senate, but that, in the

directed the Secretary to call the names of those Senators who had n and, this being done, a quorum was present.

On the question to agree to the motion of Mr. Wade, it was deter the negative, yeas 15, nays 24.

On motion by Mr. Hale, that the Sergeant-at-Arms be directed to red attendance of absent Senators, a motion was made by Mr. Green, t motion lie on the table. Mr. Stuart raised a question of order, viz, motion of Mr. Green was not in order. The Vice-President decided tha in order. From this decision Mr. Stuart appealed. After debate, on m Mr. Pugh, that the appeal lie on the table, it was determined in the affi yeas 26, nays 15.

So it was ordered, That the appeal lie on the table.

On the question, to agree to the motion of Mr. Green, that the motion Hale lie on the table, it was determined in the affirmative, yeas 25, (See Cong. Globe, 35th Cong., 1st sess.; App., pp. 97, 100. It will be no the last order was made by a quorum of the Senate.)

4. IN EARLIER PRACTICE COULD NOT COMPEL. 42d Cong., 2d sess.; J., pp. 580–582.]

APRIL 20, 1

On motion by Mr. Scott, that the Senate proceed to the consideration bill (H. R. 174) repealing the duty on tea and coffee, the yeas were 22: nays were 7.

The number of Senators voting not constituting a quorum of the Sena Sergeant-at-Arms, by a vote of 16 yeas to 8 nays, was directed to requ attendance of absent Senators. After debate, the Presiding Officer (Mr. of Michigan, in the chair) announced that the Sergeant-at-Arms had re that he had executed the order of the Senate to request the attendance absent Senators, but that it still appeared by the vote just taken that a q of the Senate was not present.

Whereupon Mr. Howe submitted a motion that the Sergeant-at-Ar directed to compel the attendance of such number of absent Senators as make a quorum of the Senate.

Mr. Pomeroy here made a point of order, viz, that, the Senate having ma provision in its rules for compelling the attendance of absent Senators, could be made only by a quorum of the body, it was not in the power minority of the Senate by adopting the proposed order to change the ex rule on the subject, and that the motion of Mr. Howe was therefore not in The Presiding Officer (Mr. Ferry, of Michigan, in the chair) sustaine point of order, and ruled the motion of Mr. Howe not in order. (See Globe, pp. 2627, 2629.)

5. MOTION DIRECTING SERGEANT-AT-ARMS TO COMPEL, NOT BATABLE.

43d Cong., 2d sess.; J., pp. 340, 341.]

FEBRUAY 24, 187

On motion by Mr. Cameron to postpone the present and all prior orders, that the Senate resume the consideration of the bill (H. R. 4681) in rela to a national cemetery at York, Pennsylvania.

The number of Senators voting not constituting a quorum of the Senate, on motion by Mr. Thurman, at 7 o'clock and 10 minutes p. m., that the Senate adjourn, it was determined in the negative, yeas 4, nays 22.

So the motion was not agreed to.

But it appearing by the vote just taken that a quorum was not present, on motion by Mr. Edmunds that the Sergeant-at-Arms be directed to request the attendance of absent Senators, Mr. Thurman rose to debate the motion; when the Presiding Officer (Mr. Ferry, of Michigan, in the chair) decided that debate on the motion was not in order.

From this decision of the Chair Mr. Thurman appealed to the Senate; and On the question, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate? the yeas were 24 and the nays were 3.

So the Chair was sustained although a quorum was wanting. (See Cong. Record, pp. 1692, 1693.)

6. MOTION TO REQUEST, MUST PRECEDE MOTION TO COMPEL. 45th Cong., 3d sess.; J., p. 365.]

FEBRUARY 24, 1879.

On motion by Mr. Harris that the Sergeant-at-Arms be directed to compel attendance of absent Senators,

Mr. Merrimon raised a question of order, viz, that under the third rule of the Senate the motion should be preceded by a motion to request the attendance of absent Senators.

The Presiding Officer submitted the question to the Senate, Should the motion to compel be preceded by a motion to request the attendance of absent Senators? and it was determined in the affirmative, yeas 24, nays 12. (See Cong. Record, pp. 1844, 1847, 1848.)

7. ON COMPELLING, WHEN QUORUM IS PRESENT. 47th Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 279.]

FEBRUARY 2, 1883.

The question of order "that the order to compel the attendance of absent Senators was not in order, the number of Senators present constituting a quorum," was laid on the table, and the order to compel the attendance of absent Senators was withdrawn. (See Cong. Record, pp. 1986, 1987.)

MARCH 3, 1893.

52d Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 164.] The President pro tempore (Mr. Manderson) decided that it was competent for the Senate under its rules to order the attendance of absent Senators when a quorum is present, it being a right inherent in every legislative body to compel the attendance of absent members who are not present for duty and who have not been excused. (See Cong, Record, p. 2535.)

S. PENDING PROCEEDINGS TO COMPEL, OTHER BUSINESS NOT IN ORDER.

47th Cong., 2d sess.; J., pp. 404-406.]

FEBRUARY 23, 1883.

The number of Senators voting not constituting a quorum, the Presiding Officer (Mr. Morgan, in the Chair) directed the roll to be called, when thirty-six Senators answered as their names were called.

The number of Senators responding not constituting a quorum, on motion by Mr. Edmunds that the Sergeant-at-Arms be directed to request the attendance of