Page images
PDF
EPUB

PRIVILEGE.

1. It is a breach of, for head of a department to communicate irrelevant matter.

2. Senator may not be taken off floor by a question of.

3. Report on certain attempts at bribery is a question of.

4. Presentation of credentials a question of highest.

5. Presentation of resolutions declaring no lawful election of a United States Senator had been had, not a question of.

6. Resolution of House of Representatives for final adjournment, a question of.

7. A citizen may not explain in Senate, except in writing.

1. IT IS A BREACH OF, FOR HEAD OF A DEPARTMENT TO COMMUNICATE IRRELEVANT MATTER.

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.)

2. SENATOR MAY NOT BE TAKEN OFF FLOOR BY A QUESTION OF. 40th Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 217.]

FEBRUARY 25, 1868.

A Senator can not be taken off the floor by a question of privilege. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 1405, 1406.)

3. REPORT ON CERTAIN ATTEMPTS AT BRIBERY IS A QUESTION OF. 53d Cong., 2d sess.; J., pp. 214-216.]

MAY 29, 1894.

Mr. Gray, from the special committee appointed to investigate certain attempts at bribery, etc., presented a partial report (No. 457) as a matter of privilege and asked that the same be read ;

When,

A question as to the privileged character of the report having been raised, The Presiding Officer (Mr. Faulkner in the chair) ruled that inasmuch as it had been stated that the report involved the highest privileges of the Senate, it should be read for the information of the Senate in order to determine the question of privilege, and he directed the report to be read; which was done. The question being whether the presentation of the report was such a question of privilege as to interrupt the pending business,

The Vice-President (Mr. Stevenson) decided that the 12port was privileged and was not such a report as called for any action of the Senate, but that the only action called for was that of the Presiding Officer.

From the decision of the Chair, so far as it declared that the report called for no action on the part of the Senate, Mr. Hill appealed to the Senate; and After debate,

On motion by Mr. Harris,

Ordered, That the appeal lie on the table. (See Cong. Record, pp. 5450–5454.)

4. PRESENTATION OF CREDENTIALS A QUESTION OF HIGHEST. 35th Cong., 1st sess.; J., pp. 215, 216.] FEBRUARY 25, 1858.

The question was raised whether the presentation of credentials and papers involving the right of a State to representation in the Senate was a privileged subject, but before a decision thereon the matter involved was referred to a committee. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 861-867.)

45th Cong., 1st sess.; J., pp. 16, 17.]

OCTOBER 17, 1877.

Mr. Thurman presented the credentials of Henry M. Spofford, elected a Senator by the legislature of the State of Louisiana for the term of six years, commencing March 4, 1877. The credentials were read. Mr. Thurman then submitted the following resolution, and asked for its present consideration:

"Resolved, That Henry M. Spofford, whose credentials as a Senator from the State of Louisiana have been this day read, be now sworn and admitted as such Senator."

Mr. Edmunds objected to the consideration of the said resolution this day, and raised the point of order that under the thirty-third rule of the Senate, which requires that all resolutions shall lie over one day for consideration, the resolution could not now, be considered.

The Vice-President (Mr. Wheeler) overruled the point of order raised by Mr. Edmunds, and decided that under the seventh rule of the Senate the presentation of the credentials of a Senator being a question of privilege, all questions and motions arising thereon were in order at this time, and that the consideration of the resolution could now be proceeded with. (See Cong. Record, p. 78; special sess.)

45th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 101.]

NOVEMBER 28, 1877.

Mr. Wadleigh rose to a question of privilege, and moved that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the resolution yesterday reported by the Committee on Privileges and Elections to admit William Pitt Kellogg to a seat in the Senate. Mr. Thurman objected, and raised a question of order that until the business of the morning hour shall have been concluded, and so announced from the Chair, the motion was not in order, and could not be entertained unless by unanimous consent. The Vice-President (Mr. Wheeler) overruled the point of order, and decided that the motion was a question of privilege within the meaning of the rules, and was in order at this time, and that the question of consideration could be determined by a majority of the Senate. On appeal, the Chair was sustained; yeas 29, nays 28. (See Cong. Record, pp. 728730.)

On the next day (November 29) the Vice-President (Mr. Wheeler), in reply to a parliamentary inquiry that the question of the consideration of a resolution to seat a Senator was a question of privilege which can be dispensed with only by unanimous consent (Rec., p. 749), and the Senate thereafter proceeded day after day to consider the pending resolution until disposed of, immediately after the reading of the Journal,

46th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 124.]

MAY 6, 1879.

The Senate having under consideration the resolution reported from the Committee on Privileges and Elections May 1, 1879, instructing said committee to inquire into the matters alleged in the petition of Henry M. Spofford, relating to the right of Hon. William Pitt Kellogg to a seat in the Senate, pending debate, the Presiding Officer announced that the morning hour had expired.

Mr. Houston raised a question of order that the resolution, being a privileged question, must be proceeded with without motion and to the exclusion of other business.

Mr. Houston having proceeded to read a decision of the Vice-President (Mr. Wheeler), made November 29, 1877, Mr. Conkling raised a question of order that, the Chair having submitted no question of order to the Senate, and there having been no ruling from which an appeal had been taken, under the fortieth rule Mr. Houston was not in order.

The Presiding Officer overruled the question of order raised by Mr. Conkling, and decided that Mr. Houston was proceeding in order.

From the decision Mr. Carpenter appealed to the Senate.

Appeal ordered to lie on the table; yeas 24, nays 23. Mr. Houston withdrew question of order. (See Cong. Record, pp. 1073-1075.)

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

MARCH 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.

A question of order was raised, 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, and that it neither declares the contestant elected nor does it declare there was no election. The question of order being submitted to the Senate, the Senate, by a vote of 9 yeas to 51 nays, decided that the amendment was not in order.. (See Cong. Record, pp. 1671-1676.)

5. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTIONS DECLARING NO LAWFUL ELECTION OF A UNITED STATES SENATOR HAD BEEN HAD, NOT A QUESTION OF.

53d Cong., 3d sess.; J., p. 84.]

JANUARY 31, 1895.

Mr. Chandler submitted the following resolution and asked for its consideration as a question of privilege:

Whereas at the time of the alleged election of John Martin as Senator from Kansas the legislature of the State had not been duly organized; and

Whereas at the joint convention which made said election no majority of the legally elected members of the legislature voted for Mr. Martin: Therefore, Resolved, That there was no lawful election of a United States Senator from Kansas by the joint assembly which met on January 25, 1893, and that John Martin is not entitled to a seat as a Senator from the State of Kansas. Mr. Gray objected to its present consideration; and

The Vice-President (Mr. Stevenson) ruled that the resolution was not a question of privilege to be proceeded with until disposed of; and objection

to its consideration having been made, the resolution should go over under the rule until to-morrow.

From the decision of the Chair Mr. Chandler appealed to the Senate, and

On motion by Mr. Gorman that the appeal lie on the table; yeas 40, nays 6. (See Cong. Record, pp. 1566, 1567.)

6. RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR FINAL ADJOURNMENT A QUESTION OF.

55th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 176.]

JULY 24, 1897.

The Vice-President (Mr. Hobart) laid before the Senate, for its consideration, the resolution of the House of Representatives providing for the final adjournment of the two Houses of Congress at 9 o'clock p. m. this day;

When,

Mr. Morgan objected to the consideration of the resolution and raised a point of order, viz, that objection having been made, the resolution, under clause 5, rule 14, must lie over one day for consideration.

The Vice-President overruled the question of order and decided that the resolution which provided for an adjournment of Congress was a question of privilege, and that the provision of rule 14 was not applicable thereto.

From the decision of the Chair Mr. Allen appealed to the Senate;

When,

On motion by Mr. Aldrich that the appeal lie on the table, it was determined in the affirmative; yeas 36, nays 20. So the appeal was laid on the table. Cong. Record, pp. 2940-2947.)

(See

7. A CITIZEN MAY NOT EXPLAIN IN THE SENATE, EXCEPT IN WRITING.

9th Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 126.]

JANUARY 21, 1807.

One Theodore Burr was quoted as making certain statements regarding a bill "for the erection of a bridge over the River Potomac, within the District of Columbia."

Mr. Giles offered a motion that he be admitted to the bar of the Senate for examination. It was objected that the motion was not in order; and the President submitted this question to the Senate, and the objection was sustained. Burr subsequently made his explanation in writing and it was read in the Senate.

PRIVILEGED MOTION.

35th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 320.]

APRIL 6, 1858.

The call of a Senator for the execution of an existing order of the Senate held to be a privilege. (See Cong. Globe, p. 1480.)

35th Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 256.]

FEBRUARY 3, 1859.

A motion to reconsider may be entered as a privileged motion, but its consideration must be determined by a vote of the Senate. (See Cong. Globe, p.

QUORUM.

What number constitutes.

In impeachment trials, same as, of the Senate.

Counting a.

May count a, if necessary.

Against counting a.

Being present on last roll call, its absence can not immediately be sug= gested, no business having intervened.

Point of order that no quorum was present can not be made without consent of Senator holding the floor.

On compelling the attendance of absent Senators, a quorum being present.

A joint resolution may be signed when a quorum is not present.

On question of adjournment without day, a quorum lacking, the decisions differ.

Can not compel attendance of absent Senators, no quorum being present, in absence of a rule.

May compel attendance of absent Senators, etc.

While requesting a Senator to assign reasons for not voting, no quorum being present, not in order to adjourn.

May not reconsider a vote in absence of.

May not raise a point of order, no quorum being present, pending execu= tion of order to compel attendance of absent Senators.

Less than a, may take a recess.

Less than a, can not take a recess.

Messages from the President or House of Representatives may be received, no quorum being present.

Calling of the roll to ascertain if a, is present at the opening sessions of each Congress.

WHAT NUMBER CONSTITUTES.

The first clause of section 5 of Article I, of the Constitution, provides: SECTION 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualitions of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum lo business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be thorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and ler such penalties as each House may provide.

lause 2 of Rule III says:

2. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the Senators duly chosen and

orn.

38th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 401.]

MAY 4, 1864.

On May 4, 1864 the following resolution was passed-yeas 26, nays 11:

· Resolved, That a quorum of the Senate consists of a majority of the Senators ly chosen."

52850-09--26

401

« PreviousContinue »