ANTHONY RULE. 46th Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 197.] FEBRUARY 5, 1 On motion by Mr. Anthony the Senate proceeded to consider the res submitted by him February 3, 1880, to proceed to the consideration of the Calendar unobjected to, and, having been amended on the motion Anthony, the resolution, as amended, was agreed to as follows: “ Resolve at the conclusion of the morning business for each day the Senate will I to the consideration of the Calendar and continue such consideration uni past one o'clock; and bills that are not objected to shall be taken up in order, and each Senator shall be entitled to speak once, and for five m only (unless, upon motion, the Senate shall at any time otherwise order the objection may be interposed at any stage of the proceedings." The above resolution was amended in the Third Session of the 46th gress, December 16, 1880 (J., p. 58), allowing debate " upon any question this order "shall commence immediately after the call for concurrent and resolutions,' and shall take precedence of the unfinished business and special orders." It was further amended in the First Session of the Congress, February 8, 1882 (J., pp. 280, 281, by adding after the words the objection may be interposed at any stage of the proceedings" the follo unless upon motion the Senate shall otherwise order. At this session, A 20, 1882 (J., p. 446), the time for the consideration of the Calendar of and resolutions was extended until 2 o'clock p. m. In the same session, April 27, 1882 (J., p. 637), the following was add the rule: But if the Senate shall proceed with the consideration of any m notwithstanding an objection, the foregoing provisions touching debate not apply, but the subject shall be proceeded with under the standing rul the Senate. The above resolution was known as the "Anthony Rule," and the pre Rule VIII is founded upon it. 45th Cong., 2d sess.; J., pp. 235, 236.] FEBRUARY 25, 187 Under the order providing for the consideration of business on the Caler generally known as the "Anthony rule," the Senate having under considera the bill (S. 725) "to amend the one hundred and fourth article of war," after bate, Mr. Edmunds objected to the further consideration of the bill at this t and asked that it be passed over, when Mr. Blaine raised a question of or that by the resolution under which the Senate was proceeding, after a bill been taken up for consideration and after debate upon the same, a single ob tion did not require it to be passed over. The Presiding Officer submitted the question to the Senate: Does an object interposed after debate, by a single Senator, require the pending measure to passed over under the order now in force? And it was determined in affirmative; yeas 27, nays 26. (See Cong. Record, p. 1304.) 132 46th Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 369.] MARCH 24, 1880. On motion by Mr. Hill, of Georgia, the Senate proceeded to consider, as in ommittee of the Whole, the resolution reported by him March 9, 1880, for the ppointment of an assistant librarian for the Senate. Pending debate, an objection having been made to the further consideration the resolution, the Vice-President (Mr. Wheeler) decided that the consideraon of the resolution was in order. Subsequently, and while the resolution as under consideration, the Vice-President (Mr. Wheeler) asked the Senate o place its construction upon the point made by Mr. Cockrell, and submitted e following proposition: "Does what is known as the Anthony rule supersede that part of the eighth le of the Senate which provides that, if any portion of the morning hour all remain after the call for resolutions, the Presiding Officer shall lay before he Senate, in their order, resolutions and concurrent resolutions introduced on my prior day?" It was determined in the affirmative. (See Cong. Record, p. 1824, 1825.) 47th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 332.] FEBRUARY 21, 1882. The President pro tempore (Mr. Davis) decided that the Anthony rule did 't extend the morning hour beyond 1 o'clock for the reception of regular mornng business. (See Cong. Record, pp. 1328, 1329, 1330.) APPEALS. 1. May be debated. 2. Not debatable, where original motion is nondebatable. 1. MAY BE DEBATED. 41st Cong., 3d sess.; J., p. 355.] FEBRUARY 23, 1871. An appeal from the decision of the Chair on a point of order may be debated. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 1600–1604.) 51st Cong., 2d sess.; J., pp. 47, 53, 54.] DECEMBER 23-31, 1890. The Vice-President (Mr. Morton) laid before the Senate the resolution submitted by Mr. Morgan on the 20th instant, directing the Committee on Privileges and Elections to so amend section 31 of the reported amendment to the bill, H. R. 11045, as to show what are the changes and modifications proposed to be made in the existing law. When Mr. Edmunds made the point of order, viz, that it was a proposition to amend by resolution a bill not under consideration and was not in order, and the Senate adjourned. When this resolution was laid before the Senate Wednesday, December 31, an appeal was taken from the decision of the Vice-President that the resolution was no longer before the Senate, and debate was begun, which the VicePresident (Mr. Morton) ruled to be in order. No further action. (See Cong. Record, pp. 801-826, 889, 890.) 2. APPEALS NOT DEBATABLE, WHERE ORIGINAL MOTION IS NON DEBATABLE. 51st Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 80.] JANUARY 16, 1891. The Vice-President (Mr. Morton) decided that an appeal from the decision of the Chair is not debatable where the original motion is nondebatable. On appeal the decision was sustained: yeas 31, nays 15. (See Cong. Record, pp. 1432, 1433.) APPROPRIATION BILLS-PRECEDENCE OF. DO NOT HAVE SPECIAL RIGHTS AFTER 2 P. M. 57th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 191.] The eight-hour bill being before the Senate, MARCH 2, 1899. The Presiding Officer (Mr. Pasco) decided that after 2 o'clock a motion to take up an appropriation bill did not take precedence over a motion to take up any other bill on the calendar. (See Cong. Record, pp. 2716-2717.) APPROPRIATIONS FOR MILEAGE. IN ORDER. BECAUSE NOT ESTIMATED FOR, NOR REPORTED FROM A STANDING OR SELECT COMMITTEE. 46th Cong., 1st sess.; J., pp. 112–115.] APRIL 29, 30, 1879. The proposition to pay mileage to Senators and members of the House of Representatives, under Rule XVI, was treated the same as an appropriation bill. H. R. 1343 to provide for certain expenses of the present session of Congress being under consideration. On motion by Mr. Plumb to further amend the bill by inserting at the end of line 65 the following: For mileage of Senators at the extra session, $36,000. For mileage of members of the House of Representatives and Delegates from Territories at the extra session, $100,000. 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. The President pro tempore, Mr. Thurman, having submitted the question of order to the Senate, Senate adjourned. Next day, the Senate, by a vote of 33 yeas and 23 nays, decided the amendment in order. (See Cong. Record, pp. 975-983.) ARBITRATION. While the Journal does not reveal the fact, there is one instance of 1 where the Senate, in considering a provision in an appropriation bill, sa quasi court of arbitration. The history of the case is given quite fully in S report No. 975, Sixtieth Congress, second session, as follows: "By the treaty of 1866 the United States agreed to investigate and dete the losses sustained by the loyal Creek Indians and freedmen during the war and to pay the amount or amounts found due. "Article 4 of said treaty provides as follows: Immediately after ratific of this treaty the United States agree to ascertain the amount due the re ive soldiers who enlisted in the Federal Army, loyal refugee Indians and 1 men, in proportion to their several losses, and to pay the amount awarded in the following manner, to wit: A census of the Creeks shall be taken b agent of the United States for said nation, under the direction of the Secr of the Interior, and a roll of the names of all soldiers that enlisted in the eral Army, loyal refugee Indians and freedmen, be made by him. The sup tendent of Indian affairs for the southern superintendency and the age the United States for the Creek Nation shall proceed to investigate and mine from said roll the amounts due the respective refugee Indians, and transmit to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs for his approval, and th the Secretary of the Interior, their awards, together with the reasons t for. (14 Stat., 787.) "In accordance with this treaty agreement, Gen. W. B. Hazen and Capt. Field, of the Regular Army, the latter having been detailed as union agen the Five Civilized Tribes, were designated as commissioners to ascertain determine the amount of such losses. This report was made with exhau care. (S. Doc. No. 420, 57th Cong., 1st sess., p. 18.) "These awards amounted to $1,836,430.41. Prior to this award the Go ment made advance payment of $100,000 (16 Stats., 341), but no further ments were made, and on March 1, 1901, the United States entered into the lowing agreement with the Creek Indians (section 26): 'All claims of w soever nature, including the loyal Creek claim, under article 4 of the trea 1866, and the self-emigration claim, under article 12 of the treaty of which the tribe or any individual thereof may have against the United St or any other claim arising under the treaty of 1866, or any claim which United States may have against said tribe, shall be submitted to the Sena the United States for determination; and within two years from the ratific of this agreement the Senate shall make final determinaion thereof; and in event that any sums are awarded the said tribe, or any citizen thereof, vision shall be made for immediate payment of same.' "The Senate of the United States on June 23, 1902 (S. Doc. 420, 57th C 1st sess.), referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs the memorial of Is hecher, ex-chief Muskogee (Creek) Nation, for himself as loyal Creek clain and as attorney in fact for others. Testimony was taken, arguments he |