35. EFFORTS MADE TO REMOVE INJUNCTION OF SECRECY FROM ALL FORMER SESSIONS WITH. 30th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 185.] FEBRUARY 23, 1848. Among other resolutions submitted for consideration by Mr. Allen was: Resolved, That the injunction of secrecy be, and the same hereby is, removed from all past proceedings of the Senate in executive session. [On February 29, following, this resolution was laid on the table. 196.)] (J., P. 36. MOTION TO CONSIDER QUESTION RELATING TO PRIVILEGES WITH, NOT IN ORDER. 30th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 587.] During a somewhat memorable all-night session AUGUST 12, 1848. Mr. Butler arose and stated that he had a subject to present to the Senate, relating to the privileges of the Senate, requiring the doors of their chamber to be shut, and moved the closing of the doors. The motion was seconded by Mr. Berrien. Mr. Breese raised a question of order, whether the motion to close the doors was in order. The President pro tempore (Mr. Atchison) decided that the motion by Mr. Butler was not in order. From this decision Mr. Mason appealed. The Senate sustained the Chair by a vote of 36 yeas to 11 nays. 37. PENDING A MOTION FOR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION. 33d Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 282.] MARCH 27, 1854. A motion being made to go into executive session, and a motion being made by Mr. Mason that the doors of the Senate be shut for the consideration of this motion, the President pro tempore (Mr. Atchison) decided that the gallery should be cleared. From this decision Mr. Badger appealed. On the question, Is the decision of the Chair correct? the yeas were 29, nays 9. The galleries were cleared. The doors being shut, the question then being on motion of Mr. Mason to proceed to the consideration of executive business, after debate, Ordered, That the doors be opened; and on the question that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business, it was determined in the affirmative. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 752-756.) COMMIT RECOMMIT. 1. Early rule giving order in which motion could be made to. 2. Parliamentary law regarding. 3. Repeated recommitments of a bill. 4. Conference reports may be recommitted. 5. On division of question to recommit with instructions, both branches fall alike. Clause 2 of Rule XV of the standing rules of the Senate reads as follows: "When a bill or resolution shall have been ordered to be read a third time, it shall not be in order to propose amendments, unless by unanimous consent, but it shall be in order at any time before the passage of any bill or resolution to more its commitment; and when the bill or resolution shall again be reported from the committee it shall be placed on the Calendar, and when again considered by the Senate it shall be as in Committee of the Whole." (Jefferson's Manual, Secs. XXVI-XXX.) By Rule XXII it is provided that "When a question is pending, no motion shall be received but to adjourn; to adjourn to a day certain, or that when the Senate adjourn it shall be to a day certain; to take a recess, to proceed to the consideration of executive business, to lay on the table, to postpone indefinitely, to postpone to a day certain, to commit, to amend. Which several motions shall have precedence as they stand arranged; and the motions relating to adjournment, to take a recess, to proceed to the consideration of executive business, to lay on the table, shall be decided without debate." (Jefferson's Manual, Sec. XXXIII.) Clause 1 of Rule XXVI reads: "When motions are made for reference of a subject to a select committee, or to a standing committee, the question of reference to a standing committee shall be put first; and a motion simply to refer shall not be open to amendment, except to add instructions." (Jefferson's Manual, Secs. XXVI, XXXIII.) 1. EARLY RULE GIVING ORDER IN WHICH MOTION COULD BE MADE TO. The first Senate rule on the subject, adopted April 16, 1789, read as follows: "RULE VIII. When a question is before the Senate, no motion shall be received unless for an adjournment, for the previous question, or for postponing the main question, or to commit it, or to adjourn." (1st Cong., 1st sess.; J,. p. 13.) 2. PARLIAMENTARY LAW REGARDING. Jefferson's Manual, Section XXVIII, states the parliamentary law as to commitment and recommitment as follows: "After a bill has been committed and reported, it ought not, in an ordinary course, to be recommitted; but in cases of importance, and for special reasons, it is sometimes recommitted, and usually to the same committee. (Hakew., 151.) If a report be recommitted before agreed to in the House, what has passed in committee is of no validity; the whole question is again before the committee, and a new resolution must be again moved, as if nothing had passed. (3 Hats., 131-note.) "A particular clause of a bill may be committed without the whole bill (3 Hats., 131); or so much of a paper to one and so much to another committee." Section 120 of Reed's Parliamentary Rules provides: "The motion to commit is debatable, but the merits of the main question are not open to discussion on this motion, since that discussion will be in order when the committee reports. If, however, the proposition be to commit with instructions as to the main question, then debate can be had on the merits." 3. REPEATED RECOMMITMENTS OF A BILL. In the first session of the Sixth Congress the bill "providing for salvage in cases of recapture" was three times recommitted to the special committee having it in charge, after its first reference. The committee first reported the bill with amendments on January 7, 1800 (J., p. 17), when it was ordered “recommitted to the same committee for further amendment." The committee reported the bill a second time with further amendments on January 9, when the amendments were printed for the use of the Senate. (J., p. 19.) On January 10 the Senate resumed consideration of the reported amendments and ordered the bill recommitted to the same committee, but added thereto Messrs. Dexter and Livermore. (J., p. 19.) This enlarged special committee reported the bill with mendments on January 16, 1800, and on January 20 following the Senate ordered "that the bill and amendments be recommitted to the same committee, further to consider and report thereon." This committee reported on the 24th and the bill was passed with an amendment on January 31, 1800. (J., p. 25.) 4. CONFERENCE REPORTS MAY BE RECOMMITTED. It is in order in the Senate to recommit a conference report to the committee of conference, but not with instructions. In the House of Representatives, prior to a decision of Speaker Carlisle in the Forty-ninth Congress, there were many instances where conference reports were thus recommitted. Since this decision, which has been affirmed by subsequent Speakers of the House, a change in the practice has been made necessary, and but few efforts have since been successfully made in the Senate or in the House to thus commit a conference report. In rendering his decision, Mr. Carlisle said: “The consideration of conference reports is governed by different rules, in many respects, from all other legislative proceedings in the House. Such reports can not be laid on the table, as has been frequently decided; nor can they be amended, as has also been frequently decided; and the only question which can be taken upon them is to agree to them as an entirety or to postpone their consideration, for the obvious reason that a refusal to agree is of itself substantially equivalent to a commitment to another conference committee, the old one being dissolved by its report to the two Houses. The motion to recommit, therefore, the Chair thinks is out of order." NOTE. Inasmuch as concurrent action is necessary for the recommittal of a confer ence report, this action of the House has made a change necessary in the practice of the Senate. It is apparent, however, that the same purposes can be attained by a rejection of the report, when another conference can be ordered, and, in accordance with usage, the same conferees appointed. For instances where the Senate has recommitted conference reports, see Journals of the Senate, 42d Cong., 3d sess., pp. 313, 554-557; 43d Cong, 1st sess., p. 865; 44th Cong., 1st sess., p. 211; 49th Cong., 2d sess., p. 151; 55th Cong., 3d sess., Cong. Record, pp. 2823, 2842, 2843. 5. ON DIVISION OF QUESTION TO COMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS, BOTH BRANCHES FALL ALIKE. 35th Cong., 2d sess.; J., pp. 315, 316.] FEBRUARY 14, 1859. The Senate proceeded to consider the report of the Committee on the Judiciary on the memorial of the State of Indiana in relation to the Senators from Indiana, with the reported resolution, that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from the further consideration of the memorial of the legislature of Indiana. After motions by Mr. Seward and Mr. Pugh to amend, On motion by Mr. Harlan, "That all the papers in this case be recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to inquire whether Graham N. Fitch and Jesse D. Bright or Henry S. Lane and W. M. McCarty, or any one of them, has been elected to the office of Senator of the United States from the State of Indiana as provided by the Constitution of the United States, and in accordance with the laws and usages of the State of Indiana, and report the facts connected with and bearing on the supposed election of each to the Senate, and that the contestants be allowed to appear at the bar of the Senate when such report shall be made and argue their right to seats." After debate, a division of the motion made by Mr. Harlan was called for by Mr. Stuart; and the question being taken on the first division, viz: "That all the papers in this case be recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary," it was determined in the negative: Yeas, 14; nays, 32. So the motion to recommit with instructions was disagreed to. [The Vice-President (John C. Breckinridge) held that the second branch of the motion fell with the rejection of the first branch. (See Cong. Globe, 35th Cong., 2d sess., p. 1019, and Appendix, pp. 128-148.)]. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. Presiding Officer retains chair when Senate is in. Standing rules generally apply in. On motion made in, to refer to a special committee. The Committee of the Whole is an ancient parliamentary instion. The Continental Congress frequently resolved itself into a committee for the consideration of the more important business ore it, and also for giving audience to foreign ministers. (See rnal of Continental Congress, February 13, 1779.) The Federal vention, called to frame the Constitution, met May 14, 1787, adjourned from day to day until the delegates arrived. On y 29 it was "Resolved, That the House will meet to-morrow to lve itself into a Committee of the Whole House to consider of the e of the American Union." A similar motion was thereafter eed to from time to time. (See Bulletin No. 3, Department of te, January, 1894, p. 55.) Early in the first session of the First Congress, May 21, 1789, it resolved in the Senate "that all bills on a second reading shall considered by the Senate in the same manner as if the Senate e in Committee of the Whole, before they shall be taken up and ceeded on by the Senate agreeable to the standing rules, unless erwise ordered." (1st Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 28.) Prior to this e but one bill had been passed by the Senate, a bill "to regulate time and manner of administering certain oaths." (May 7, 1789; p. 23.) his provision, in almost exact words, was adopted as part of one he standing rules of the Senate on March 26, 1806. (9th Cong., sess.; J., p. 66.) This rule also provided that "in the absence of Vice-President, when the Senate consider a treaty, bill, or resoon, as if they were in Committee of the Whole, the President tempore may call a member to fill the chair during the time the ate shall remain in Committee of the Whole; which chairman is by vested, during said time, with all the powers of the President tempore, were he to remain in the chair." |