ground that on a motion to postpone the prior orders, Mr. Seward was entering on the discussion of the comparative merits of the two bills.

The Vice-President (Mr. Breckinridge) decided that Mr. Seward was in order. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 1351-1353.)

16. CAN NOT DISCUSS MERITS OF A BILL ON A MOTION TO POSTPONE SAME.

35th Cong., 2d sess.; J., pp. 381, 382.]

FEBRUARY 25, 1859.

The debate continuing on motion to postpone the same and prior orders. Mr. Doolittle, rising to address the Chair, was called to order by Mr. Johnson, of Arkansas, who made a point of order that on a motion to postpone the pending bill and all prior orders for the purpose of considering a House bill, the merits of the bill should not be discussed.

The Vice-President (Mr. Breckinridge) decided that Mr. Doolittle was in order.

From this decision Mr. Johnson appealed and the decision of the Chair was reversed, 22 Senators voting to sustain, 29 to overrule. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 1351-1353.)

17. INTERVENING BUSINESS IS DEBATE.

42d Cong., 2d sess.]

APRIL 20, 1872.

The bill (H. R. 174) "Repealing the duty on tea and coffee" being under consideration, a call of the Senate was had, followed by a motion to adjourn, which was not agreed to. Without debate, another motion to adjourn was made, which the presiding officer (Mr. Ferry, of Michigan) ruled out of order, "no business having intervened."

Discussion having taken place, a third motion to adjourn was made, to which an objection was made. The presiding officer (Mr. Ferry, of Michigan) said 'there was discussion that intervened, and therefore business of the Senate." (See Cong. Globe, p. 2627.)

66

DELEGATION OF A STATE.

A PAPER ADDRESSED TO THE, CAN NOT BE RECEIVED. 40th Cong., 2d sess.; J., pp. 214, 215.]

FEBRUARY 25, 1868.

Mr. Chandler presented a letter addressed to the delegation from the State of Michigan by the governor, which he asked to be read; and the reading thereof having been commenced,

Mr. Hendricks rose to a question of order and objected to the reception of the letter, and stated that being addressed to the delegation from the State of Michigan, and upon a matter not before the Senate for legislation, it was not in order.

The President pro tem. (Mr. Wade) submitted the question to the decision of the Senate, to wit: "Shall the paper be received," and it was determined in the negative. (See Cong. Globe, p. 1403.)

343

DEPARTMENTS, HEADS OF.

38th Cong., 2d sess.; J., pp. 300-312.]

MARCH 3, 1865.

It is a breach of privilege for the head of a Department, when called upon by a resolution of the Senate for information, to communicate irrelevant matter not embraced in the resolution. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 1346, 1347, 1361.)

49th Cong., 1st sess.; J., pp. 479-480.] On motion by Mr. Edmunds,

MARCH 26, 1886.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolutions expressing the sense of the Senate on the refusal of the Attorney-General to send to the Senate copies of papers called for by its resolution of January 25, 1886; and

The question being on the amendment proposed by Mr. Van Wyck, and

Mr. Van Wyck having modified the same so as to amend by inserting at the end of the third resolution the words and in all such cases of removal the matter shall be considered in open session of the Senate,

After debate,

Mr. Hoar raised a question of order, viz, that as the amendment would operate as a change in the standing rules of the Senate, it was not in order except on one day's notice as required by the fortieth rule.

The President pro tempore (Mr. Sherman) sustained the point of order, and decided that as the thirty-sixth rule provides that when acting upon confidential or executive business the Senate chamber shall be cleared of all persons except certain officers specified, and as the communications referred to in the resolutions are executive communications, known to be such, the proposed amendment which would change the rule to a certain extent was not in order under the fortieth rule, which requires one day's notice in writing, specifying precisely the rule or part of rule proposed to be modified or amended. From the decision of the Chair, Mr. Butler appealed to the Senate. sion of the chair sustained, appeal laid on table; yeas 31, nays 28. (See Cong. Record, pp. 2784-2809.)

Ib.; J., p. 481.]

Deci

[Same date.]

Resolutions expressing the sense of the Senate on refusal of the AttorneyGeneral to send to the Senate copies of papers called for by the resolution of January 25, 1886, being before the Senate, they were divided.

On the question to agree to the third resolution, as follows, viz: Resolved, That it is, under these circumstances, the duty of the Senate to refuse its advice and consent to proposed removals of officers the documents and papers in reference to the supposed official or personal misconduct of whom are withheld by the executive or any head of a Department when deemed necessary by the Senate and called for in considering the matter.

Mr. Gray raised a question of order, viz, that this resolution, inasmuch as it undertakes to deal with nominations made to the Senate by the executive en masse, by declaring that it is the duty of the Senate to refuse to advise and

consent to a certain class of nominations, is within the objection made in reference to the amendment offered by Mr. Van Wyck, and is therefore not in order. The President pro tempore (Mr. Sherman) overruled the question of order, and decided that the resolution was a simple declaration of opinion, and did not change or modify any of the standing rules of the Senate.

From the decision of the Chair Mr. Gray appealed to the Senate; and

On the question, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate?

After debate,

On motion by Mr. Hoar to lay the appeal on the table; yeas 30, nays 27. (See Cong. Record, pp. 2810–2813.)

60th Cong., 1st sess.; J., pp. 115-116.]

JANUARY 16. 1908. Resolved, That no communications from heads of Departments, commissioners, chiefs of bureaus, or other executive officers, except when authorized or required by law, or when made in response to a resolution of the Senate, will be received by the Senate unless such communications shall be transmitted to the Senate by the President. (See Cong. Record, p. 772.)

DISABILITY BILLS.

42d Cong., 2d sess.; J., pp. 80, 687, 688.]

DECEMBER 21, 1
MAY 8, 1872.

A bill which, as a separate measure, may be passed by a majority vot not, when moved as an amendment to a disability bill, be ruled out of or incongruity, inconsistency, or on account of not being germane. Decided Senate on an appeal from the decision of the Chair.

A bill to remove disabilities, which requires a vote of two-thirds to p is up. A bill known as the "civil rights" bill is proposed as an amen Mr. Thurman raised a question of order, viz, that the amendment, b measure which, if it stood by itself, could be passed by a majority vote Senate, is not an amendment that is germane to the bill and could attached to it, the bill itself requiring a vote of two-thirds of the Sen pass it. The Chair (Mr. Anthony) overruled the point of order raised b Thurman. Mr. Thurman appealed, and after a lengthy debate the Senat tained the decision of the Chair; yeas 28, nays 26. (See Cong. Globe, pp 274, 3181, 3182, 3187.)

[The uniform practice of the Senate has been, when an amendment t Constitution of the United States is under consideration, or amendmen treaties, or to the resolutions consenting to their ratification, that the currence of two-thirds of the members persent is not necessary to decide question for amendment or extending to the merits, being short of the question.

346