Mr. Polk offered an amendment to this amendment in the following words: For the erection of a building for a post-office and courts of the United States at Jefferson City, Mo., $30,000, and a question of order was raised by Mr. Hunter whether the amendment, not proceeding from a standing committee, was in order.

The Vice-President decided that it was not in order, and was sustained on appeal by a vote of 33 to 11. (See Cong. Globe, 35th Cong., 1st sess., p. 2566.) A similar question was raised in the Thirty-fifth Congress, second session, and was decided in like manner. (J., pp. 388, 389; See Cong Globe, p. 1391.)

8. MOTION TO TAKE UP A SUBJECT NOT OPEN TO. 40th Cong., 3d sess.; J., p. 125.]

JANUARY 20, 1869. On motion by Mr. Pomeroy that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill (S. 256) "relating to the central branch of the Union Pacific Railroad Company."

On motion by Mr. Edmunds to amend the motion of Mr. Pomeroy by striking out the bill (S. 256) "relating to the central branch of the Union Pacific Railroad Company," and inserting in lieu thereof “Joint resolution (S. 66) pledging the faith of the United States to the payment of the public debt in coin or its equivalent,"

Mr. Howard raised a question of order, viz: that the motion of Mr. Pomeroy, being simply a proposition to take up a subject, was not open to amendment, and that the amendment proposed by Mr. Edmunds was therefore not in order. The President pro tempore (Mr. Wade) sustained the point of order raised by Mr. Howard, and decided that the amendment proposed by Mr. Edmunds was not in order.

From this decision of the Chair Mr. Edmunds appealed to the Senate; and after debate, on the question, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate? it was determined in the affirmative. (See Cong. Globe, 40th Cong., 3d sess., pp. 467, 468, 469.)

9. SENATE RECEDING FROM, TO A RESOLUTION, DOES NOT PASS SAME.

40th Cong., 3d sess.; J., p. 285.]

On motion by Mr. Stewart,

FEBRUARY 17, 1869.

The Senate proceeded to consider its amendments to the joint resolution of the House of Representatives (H. R. 402) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, disagreed to by the House.

On motion by Mr. Stewart that the Senate recede from its amendments to the said resolution and agree to the same,

Mr. Sherman called for a division of the question, so that the question be first taken on the proposition to recede; and

A question of order having been raised by Mr. Pomeroy, that if the motion to recede was agreed to, would not the resolution stand passed?

The President pro tempore submitted the question to the decision of the Senate, to wit:

If the motion that the Senate recede from its amendments to the resolution be agreed to, does the resolution stand passed?

It was decided in the negative; and on the question, "Will the Senate recede from its amendments to the said resolution H. R. 402?"

It was determined in the affirmative, yeas 33, nays 24.

So the motion to recede was agreed to; and, the question recurring on the second branch of the motion of Mr. Stewart, viz: That the Senate agree to the resolution of the House,

An amendment to the resolution being proposed by Mr. Wilson,

The President pro tempore (Mr. Wade) decided that an amendment to the resolution, at its present stage, was not in order.

From this decision of the Chair Mr. Pomeroy 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 33, nays 12.

10. INCONSISTENT, IN ORDER.

41st Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 970.]

JULY 5, 1870.

The Senate had under consideration the bill (H. R. 2045) to reduce internal taxes, and for other purposes;" and

On motion by Mr. Conkling, to further amend the bill by inserting after section 35 the following as an additional section:

SEC. And be it further enacted, That no such income tax shall be levied or collected until by act of Congress it shall be hereafter so directed;

Mr. Howe raised a question of order, viz, that the Senate having already determined by vote to retain the sections relating to income tax in the bill, the amendment of Mr. Conkling, being inconsistent with provisions of the sections which the Senate had by its vote determined should remain a part of the bill, was not in order.

The President pro tempore (Mr. Anthony) submitted the question for the decision of the Senate, Is the amendment in order? and, after debate, it was determined in the affirmative, yeas 27, nays 21. (See Cong. Globe, 41st Cong., 2d sess., pp. 5232, 5233, 5234.)

11. MERE RECITAL OF LEGAL PROPOSITION NOT AN AMENDMENT. 42d Cong., 3d sess.; J., pp. 335, 336.] FEBRUARY 12, 1873.

The two Houses had assembled in the Hall of the House of Representatives for the purpose of proceeding to open and count the votes of the electors of the several States for President and Vice-President of the United States.

Objection was raised upon the delivery of the certificates of the electors of the States of Georgia and Mississippi to the counting of the votes of those States. The President of the Senate having stated the said objections to the two Houses, as required by the twenty-second joint rule, the Senate thereupon withdrew to its chamber; and, the objections having been read by the Secretary, Mr. Edmunds submitted the following resolution :

Resolved, That the electoral vote of Georgia, cast for Horace Greeley, be not counted.

On motion by Mr. Thurman, to amend the resolution by striking out the word "not," it was determined in the affirmative.

On motion by Mr. Conkling to further amend by adding: The function of the two Houses in counting the votes being ministerial merely, and the question being independent of the question of the effect of the votes of the count;

Mr. Bayard made the point of order that the amendment of Mr. Conkling being a mere recital of a legal proposition, in no way changing the substance of the resolution, was not an amendment, and could not be received as such.

The Vice-President (Mr. Colfax) submitted the question to the Senate: Shall the amendment of Mr. Conkling be received? and it was determined in the negative; yeas 30, nays 32.

So it was

Resolved, That the said amendment was not in order. (See Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 3d sess., p. 1286.)

52d Cong., 1st sess.; J., pp. 135, 136.]

MAY 3, 1892. A resolution declaring Fred T. Dubois entitled to retain the seat occupied by him as a Senator from the State of Idaho was pending; an amendment was submitted to strike out all after word resolved" and inserting,

That the vote or other proceeding that constitutes a choice of a Senator of the United States must be had by the legislature of the State in which such Senator is chosen, and until the houses of such legislature have met and organized as legislative bodies, they can not choose a Senator of the United States, etc.;

Mr. Mitchell raised a question of order, viz: That the amendment is simply a declaration of principles and decides nothing; that it is offered as a substitute for a resolution which relates to a question of the highest privilege, namely, whether the sitting member was or was not duly elected a Senator from the State of Idaho for the full term commencing March 4, 1891; and that it neither declares the contestant elected nor does it declare there was no election.

The Vice-President submitted the question of order for the decision of the Senate, and, by a vote of 9 yeas to 51 nays, the Senate decided the amendment not in order. (See Cong. Record, pp. 1671, 1676.)

12. DEBATE LIMITED ON, FOR A LIMITED TIME. 42d Cong., 3d sess.; J., pp. 375, 376.]

FEBRUARY 15, 1873. The Senate agreed to the following resolution, submitted by Mr. Anthony on the preceding day:

Resolved, That during the present session it shall be in order at any time to move a recess, and, pending an appropriation bill, to move to confine debate on amendments thereto to five minutes by any Senator on the pending motion, and such motions shall be decided without debate; and no amendments to any such bill making legislative provisions, other than such as directly relate to the appropriations contained in the bill, shall be received; and no special order shall be made during this session. [On the question of agreeing to the resolution the yeas were 36, nays 20.] (See Cong. Globe, pp. 1376–1383.) Later in the session points of order were raised on amendments proposed to appropriation bills, that they were in contravention to this resolution. (See J., pp. 390, 391, 437, 465, 466, 496, 497, 498, 508.)

13. MAY BE LAID ON THE TABLE.

43d Cong., 2d sess.; J., pp. 320, 321.]

66

FEBRUARY 22, 1875.

The Senate had under consideration the bill making appropriations for the service of the Post-Office Department," etc.

On motion by Mr. Thurman to amend the bill by inserting as an additional section the following: "Sec. 5, That from and after the passage of this act the Congressional Record shall be carried in the mail free of postage," etc.

66

Mr. Stockton moved to amend the amendment proposed by Mr. Thurman by striking out all after the word That" and inserting in lieu thereof the following: the Congressional Record and all other public documents printed by Congress shall pass free through the mails, under regulations to be made by the Postmaster-General;

After debate, on motion by Mr. Edmunds that the amendment of Mr. Stockton to the amendment proposed by Mr. Thurman lie on the table,

Mr. Sargent raised the point of order: Will not the motion to lay the amendment to the amendment on the table carry with it the original amendment? The Presiding Officer (Mr. Ingalls in the chair) decided that under the thirtieth rule of the Senate it would not.

From this decision of the Chair Mr. Sargent 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 11.

The question recurring on the motion by Mr. Edmunds to lay the amendment to the amendment on the table, it was determined in the affirmative; yeas 29, nays 27. (See Cong. Record, 43d Cong., 2d sess., pp. 1572, 1573, 1585.) 46th Cong., 3d sess.; J., p. 231.] FEBRUARY 9, 1881.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 6532) “making appropriations for the payment of invalid and other pensions of the United States for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1882."

The question being on the amendment proposed by Mr. Hoar to the following amendment made in Committee of the Whole, viz: In line 17, after the word "dollars" insert the following:

To provide fifty additional examiners and for rents for additional rooms or buildings therefor for the Pension Office, etc.,

After debate, on motion by Mr. Booth to lay the amendment made in Committee of the Whole on the table,

Mr. Edmunds raised a question of order, viz, that an amendment made in Committee of the Whole could not in the Senate be laid on the table.

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Harris in the chair) overruled the question of order, and decided that the motion was in order.

From the decision of the Chair Mr. Edmunds appealed to the Senate.

On the question, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate? it was determined in the affirmative.

The amendment was then laid on the table by a vote of 27 yeas to 18 nays. (See Cong. Record, 46th Cong., 3d sess., p. 1376.)

51st Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 80.]

JANUARY 16, 1891.

The Senate had under consideration, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill (H. R. 11045) “to amend and supplement the election laws of the United States and to provide for the more efficient enforcement of such laws, and for other purposes,"

The question recurring on an amendment proposed by Mr. Butler to the part proposed to be inserted by the amendment of the committee, viz: At the end of line 107, page 104, insert:

Provided, That the supervisors, canvassers, and all the election officers shall be regarded as ministerial and not as judicial officers.

On motion by Mr. Harris to amend the amendment by adding thereto the following: And shall perform none other than ministerial duties.

After debate, on motion by Mr. Hoar that the amendment of Mr. Butler lie on the table,

Mr. Gorman raised a question of order, viz; that the question pending was the amendment proposed by Mr. Harris to the amendment of Mr. Butler, and that it was not in order to lay both amendments on the table by one motion.

The Vice-President (Mr. Morton) overruled the question of order, and decided that the motion to lay the amendment of Mr. Butler on the table carried with it the amendment to the amendment proposed by Mr. Harris and was in order. From the decision of the Chair Mr. Gorman appealed to the Senate, and proceeded to debate the question of the appeal, when Mr. Edmunds made the point of order, viz: that the original motion being a nondebatable motion, an appeal from the decision of the Chair on the question was also nondebatable.

The Vice-President sustained the point of order and decided that the appeal was not debatable; and on the question, Shall the decision of the Chair on the question of order raised by Mr. Gorman stand as the judgment of the Senate? it was determined in the affirmative; yeas 31, nays 15. So the Chair was sustained. (See Cong. Record, 51st Cong., 2d sess., pp. 1431-1433.) 53d Cong., 2d sess.; J., pp. 184, 185.]

On motion by Mr. Harris,

MAY 11, 1894.

The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the consideration of the bill (H. R. 4864) “to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the Government, and for other purposes;

and

The question being on the amendment yesterday proposed by Mr. Perkins to the amendment of Mr. Jones, of Arkansas, viz:

Strike out in the part proposed to be inserted by the amendment the word "two" and insert the word five,

After debate, on motion by Mr. Harris, that the amendment to the amendment lie on the table, it was determined in the affirmative; yeas 31, nays 25. So the amendment to the amendment was laid on the table.

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Pasco in the chair) having announced that the question recurred on the amendment proposed by Mr. Jones, of Arkansas,

Mr. Chandler raised a question of order, viz, that the vote to lay on the table the amendment to the amendment carried with it the first amendment.

The Presiding Officer overruled the point of order and decided that the vote applied to the amendment to the amendment only. (See Cong. Record, 53d Cong., 2d sess., pp. 4602, 4603.)

14. CONTAINING APPROPRIATION NOT ESTIMATED FOR. 46th Cong., 1st sess.; J., pp. 113-115.]

APRIL 29, 1879.

The Senate proceeded to consider, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill (H. R. 1343) to provide for certain expenses of the present session of Congress, and for other purposes; and

The amendments reported by the Committee on Appropriations having been agreed to, and the bill further amended on the motion of Mr. Edmunds, was reported to the Senate, and the amendments were concurred in.

On motion by Mr. Plumb to further amend the bill by inserting: For mileage of Senators at the extra session, thirty-six thousand dollars; For mileage of Members of the House of Representatives and Delegates from Territories at the extra session, one hundred thousand dollars.

Mr. Wallace raised a question of order, viz, that the amendment, not having been moved by direction of a standing or select committee of the Senate or in pursuance of an estimate from the head of a Department, was not in order under the twenty-seventh rule.