42d Cong., 3d sess.] JANUARY 8, 1873. Mr. Sprague presented a paper purporting to be resolutions of the Board of Trade of Providence, R. I., but addressed to him and not to the Senate, and asked that it be read. Upon the reading Mr. Hamlin objected to its reception, for the reason that it was a private communication to a Senator and not addressed to the Senate. Mr. Sprague thereupon withdrew the paper. (Not journalized; see Cong. Globe, p. 394.) NOTE. Many petitions and papers addressed to Senators as individuals have been received in the later Congresses. 5. RECEPTION OF RESOLUTIONS OF A PUBLIC MEETING OBJECTED TO AND REFUSED. Reception of resolutions of a public meeting objected to, and Senate refused to receive them. 6. TELEGRAPHIC DISPATCH, QUESTION OF RECEPTION, LAID ON TABLE. 42d Cong., 3d sess.; J., p. 534.] MARCH 3, 1873. Telegraphic dispatch presented by Vice-President (Mr. Colfax) purporting to be credentials of W. L. McMillen as Senator from Louisiana; reception objected to; question of its reception laid on the table. (See Cong. Globe, p. 2147.) 7. OBJECTION TO THE RECEPTION OF JOINT RESOLUTION SUSTAINED AFTER BEING READ. 38th Cong., 1st sess.; J., pp. 537, 538.] JUNE 9, 1864. Mr. Davis asked the unanimous consent of the Senate to introduce, without previous notice, a joint resolution to restore peace among the people of the United States; and the resolution having been read the first time by its title, Mr. Grimes called for the reading of the resolution at length; and the resolution having been read at length by the Secretary, Mr. Sumner objected to its reception, The President pro tempore decided that the resolution having been read the first time only by its title, and subsequently, at the request of a Senator, read at length for information, it was within the power of any Senator then to object to its reception; and that such objection having been made by the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner), the resolution could not be received. From this decision Mr. Davis appealed; and On the question, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate? It was determined in the affirmative. 8. DECIDED IN ORDER, ALTHOUGH SUBJECT MATTER IS IRRELEVANT. 41st Cong., 2d sess.; J., pp. 1072, 1073.] JULY 14, 1870. While Mr. Sumner was reading a paper (being then engaged in debate) he was called to order by Mr. Davis, who objected to his reading the paper on the ground of its irrelevancy to the subject before the Senate. The Chair (Mr. Pomeroy) overruled the point of order, and decided that Mr. Sumner had the right to read the paper as part of his remarks. Mr. Davis appealed from the decision of the Chair. And the question being submitted, the Chair was sustained. The consideration of H. R. 224, joint resolution for the relief of Mrs. Margaret P. Robinson, of Kentucky, being resumed, Mr. Sumner moved that the resolution be recommitted to the Committee on Claims, and while engaged in debate upon that motion, and while in the act of reading a paper having reference to the claim of one Esteban G. Montano, he was called to order by Mr. Davis for the reason that the paper which Mr. Sumner was reading had no reference to the subject before the Senate, and being irrelevant was not in order. The President (Mr. Pomeroy in the chair) overruled the question of order raised by Mr. Davis, and decided that the Senator from Massachusetts had the right to read the paper as a part of his remarks. Mr. Davis appealed, and the decision of the Chair was sustained by a vote of the Senate. (See Cong. Globe, p. 5566.) 9. WHEN OBJECTED TO, MUST BE DECIDED BY THE SENATE. 36th Cong., 2d sess.; J., pp. 83, 84.] JANUARY 9, 1861. Mr. Davis, while engaged in debate, sent to the Secretary's table an authenticated copy of a letter of R. W. Barnwell, J. H. Adams, and James L. Orr, commissioners of South Carolina, in reference to the existing relations of South Carolina with the United States, addressed by them to the President of the United States on the 1st of January, 1861, and returned by the President to the said commissioners, for the reason that it was of such a character that he declined to receive it, and requested that the same should be read. The reading of the paper being objected to by Mr. King, The President (Mr. Fitzpatrick in the chair) decided, that objection being made to the reading of the paper, the question should be determined by a vote of the Senate, under the fourteenth rule, and without debate. From this decision Mr. Trumbull appealed; and, On the question, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate? It was determined in the affirmative; yeas 31, nays 19. On the question, Shall the paper presented by Mr. Davis be read? it was determined in the affirmative; yeas 36, nays 13. The paper was then read by the Secretary. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 284-288.) 53d Cong., 1st sess.; J., pp. 71, 72, 73.] OCTOBER 13, 14, 1893. Mr. Peffer, while addressing the Senate, sent to the Secretary's desk to have read a memorial of a convention of commercial bodies of the United States, printed by order of the Senate as Mis. Doc. No. 24, Fifty-first Congress, second session. Mr. Teller objected to the reading of the paper; whereupon, the VicePresident (Mr. Stevenson) submitted the question to the determination of the Senate under Rule XI, "Shall the paper be read, as requested?" Yeas 39; nays, 30. So it was determined that the paper should be read. Record, pp. 2469-2479, 2509, 2510.) (See Cong. 10. A BILL CAN NOT BE READ THIRD TIME AT CALL OF A SENATOR WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE SENATE. 42d Cong., 2d sess.; J., pp. 997, 998.] JUNE 7, 1872. A bill is under consideration; a motion to postpone the bill indefinitely is pending; Mr. Stockton calls for the reading of the bill and the amendments made to it; to this objection is made. The Chair (Mr. Anthony) decides that the reading of the bill being objected to, the question, under the fourteenth rule, must be submitted to the Senate. A-question of order was here raised, viz, that a Senator before being called to vote on the motion to postpone the bill indefinitely had a right to call for the reading of the bill. The Chair overruled the question of order, on the ground that by the rules of the Senate a bill must have before its passage three readings, each of which readings may, upon the call of a Senator, be at length; that the bill under consideration had had two of these readings and could not, of right, be read at length upon the call of a Senator until the question of the third reading was put to the Senate, without the leave of the Senate, and if objected to the question must be submitted to the decision of the Senate. From the decision an appeal was taken, and after debate the appeal was, on motion, laid on the table. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 4385-4387.) 11. READING A PETITION AT LENGTH, NOT IN ORDER. 53d Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 140.] APRIL 4, 1894. The Vice-President (Mr. Stevenson) sustained a point of order, "That during the call for petitions and memorials under Rule XII, paragraph 4, which prescribes that every petition or memoral shall be signed by the petitioner or memoralist and have indorsed thereon a brief statement of its contents and shall be presented and referred without debate," it was not in order to read the petition at length, either by the Senator presenting it or by the Secretary, unless by unanimous consent. (See Cong. Record, pp. 3440-3443.) PERSONAL EXPLANATION. CAN NOT BE MADE EXCEPT BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT. 35th Cong., 2d sess.; J., pp. 492, 493.] MARCH 9, 1859. Mr. Trumbull arose to address the Senate for the purpose of making a personal explanation. Mr. Johnson, of Arkansas, raised a question of order, that it was not competent for the Senator from Illinois to address the Chair when no subject was pending before the Senate. The Vice-President (Mr. Breckinridge) decided that without unanimous consent first obtained the Senator from Illinois could not proceed. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 1688-1690.) 390 PETITIONS. May not be received if not signed. May not be received if not addressed to the Senate. MAY NOT BE RECEIVED IF NOT SIGNED. 19th Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 158.] FEBRUARY 7, 1827. Mr. Chambers presented a memorial of the American Colonization Society. ception objected to on the ground that it was not signed; objection sustained d memorial not received. (G. & S. Deb., vol. 3, pp. 289, 296.) MAY NOT BE RECEIVED IF NOT ADDRESSED TO THE SENATE. 42d Cong., 3d sess.; not journalized.] JANUARY 8, 1873. Mr. Sprague presented a paper purporting to be resolutions of the Board of ade of Providence, R. I., but addressed to him and not to the Senate, and ked that it be read. Upon the reading Mr. Hamlin objected to its reception, the reason that it was a private communication to a Senator and not adessed to the Senate. Mr. Sprague thereupon withdrew the paper. obe, p. 394; see also Papers, reading of.) (See Cong. MAY NOT BE RECEIVED FROM SUBJECTS OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES. 20th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 38.] DECEMBER 14, 1827. Mr. Smith presented the petition of Robert Holl, a British subject. Ordered lie on the table. (G. & S. Debates, vol. 4, part 1, pp. 5, 6.) 29th Cong., 2d sess.; J., pp. 198, 222.] FEBRUARY 17, 23, 1847. Vice-President (Mr. Dallas) presented the memorial of John A. Barry, a 'itish subject, and submitted the question of its reception to the Senate. otion to receive ordered to lie on the table. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 434, 435, 0.) 37th Cong., 3d sess.; J., p. 148.] JANUARY 26, 1863. Mr. Foster presented papers signed by British subjects. Ruled not in order present communications emanating from citizens of a foreign government. lee Cong. Globe, pp. 504, 505.) 39th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 470.] MAY 29, 1866. Mr. Johnson presented the petition of E. P. Salas, a Spanish subject. Chair led that, being an alien subject, the petition could not be received by the nate. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 2865, 2866.) |