Page images
PDF
EPUB

Special sess. of Senate; J., pp. 622, 625–626.]

MARCH 25, 26, 1873.

On March 25, 1873, Mr. Alcorn submitted a similar resolution to the one presented by Mr. West on March 19, 1873. On the next day it was laid before the Senate.

Mr. Ferry, of Connecticut, objected to the consideration of the resolution on the ground that the present session of the Senate being a session specially called by the President, the Senate could not consider the resolution of Mr. Alcorn, which was in the nature of legislative business.

The President pro tempore submitted the question to the decision of the Sennate, viz: Will the Senate overrule the point of order raised by Mr. Ferry, of Connecticut, and entertain the resolution of Mr. Alcorn; yeas 25, nays 18. So the resolution was in order and agreed to. (See Cong. Record, pp. 175, 176, 200-204.)

[ocr errors]

Two joint resolutions to amend the Constitution of the United States were presented at the special session of the Senate March 6, 9, 1893. At the first session of the 53d Congress, September 2, 1893, these two joint resolutions, one and two, were referred to committees. No further action. Joint resolutions one and two were introduced during this session, treating as a nullity joint resolutions one and two introduced at the special session March 9, 1893. (Mar. 6, 9, 1893, special session of the Senate, Aug. 8, 1893, 53d Cong., 1st sess., J., p. 10; 52d Cong., 2d sess., J., pp. 171, 172; Sept. 2, 1893, 53d Cong., 1st sess., J., p. 36.) Mr. Frye, at the special session of the Senate on March 15, 1905, introduced Senate bill No. 1, "To incorporate the American National Institute (Prix de Paris) at Paris, France," which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. (Journal special session, 58th Cong., 3d sess., p. 338.) On January 8, 1906 (J., p. 77, 59th Cong., 1st sess.), the bill was reported and passed. (Jan. 10, 1906; J., p. 87.)

[The question of considering matters of business outside of purely executive business at special sessions of the Senate has been decided both ways, but the current of decisions seems to be against the reception of legislative business.]

SUNDAY SESSIONS.

SENATE REFUSES TO SIT ON SUNDAY.

22d Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 239.]

The Senate by a vote of 23 to 12 refused to sit on Sunday.

MARCH 2, 1833.

TABLE.

1. During reading of a paper a motion to lay a bill on the, entertained.

2. Motion to reconsider may be laid on.

3. Motion to direct the Sergeant-at-Arms to request attendance of absent Members may be laid on.

4. Motion to postpone prior orders and take up a bill may be laid on. 5. Preamble may be laid on.

6. Motion to lay on the, a motion to proceed to the consideration of a resolution to admit a Senator-elect, as a Senator, not in order.

7. Motion to lay on the, an amendment to an amendment does not carry with it the original amendment.

8. The question of granting leave to withdraw a motion to reconsider may be laid on the, without carrying the motion with it.

9. Motion to reconsider vote on agreeing to a conference report may be laid on the, without carrying the report.

10. Motion to lay on the, not one of the incidental motions in order pending motion to proceed to the consideration of a bill.

1. DURING READING OF A PAPER A MOTION TO LAY A BILL ON THE,

ENTERTAINED.

31st Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 249.]

MARCH 3, 1851.

Pending the reading of a paper a motion to lay a bill on the table entertained, but not agreed to. (See Cong. Globe, Appendix, p. 369.)

2. MOTION TO RECONSIDER MAY BE LAID ON. 35th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 224.]

MARCH 1, 1858.

A motion to reconsider may be laid on the table. (See Cong. Globe, p. 901.) 42d Cong., 2d sess.; J., pp. 809, 974.]

f MAY 21, 1872. JUNE 6, 1872.

A motion to reconsider a vote on the passage of a bill may be laid on the table without carrying the bill. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 3739, 4285.)

3. MOTION TO REQUEST SERGEANT-AT-ARMS TO REQUEST ATTENDANCE OF ABSENT MEMBERS MAY BE LAID ON.

35th Cong., 1st sess.; J., pp. 258, 259.]

MARCH 15, 1858.

A motion to direct the Sergeant-at-Arms to request the attendance of absent Senators may be laid on the table. (See Cong. Globe, Appendix, pp. 97, 100.)

NOTE. This order was made, however, by a quorum.

4. MOTION TO POSTPONE PRIOR ORDERS AND TAKE UP A BILL MAY BE LAID ON.

35th Cong., 2d sess.; J., pp. 383, 384.]

FEBRUARY 25, 1859.

A motion to postpone prior orders and take up a bill may be laid on the table. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 1362, 1363.)

5. PREAMBLE MAY BE LAID ON. 42d Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 303.]

FEBRUARY 29, 1872.

The preamble to a resolution where a separate vote has been called on it on the demand for a division, and when the resolution has been agreed to, may be laid on the table. (See Cong. Globe, p. 1290.)

6. MOTION TO LAY ON THE, A MOTION TO PROCEED TO THE CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION TO ADMIT A SENATOR-ELECT AS A SENATOR, NOT IN ORDER.

43d Cong., 2d sess.; J., pp. 270, 271.]

FEBRUARY 15, 1875.

A motion is made to proceed to the consideration of a resolution to admit a Senator-elect as a Senator from Louisiana; a motion is made to lay that motion on the table; a question of order is raised: "Is the motion to lay on the table in order?" The Chair (Mr. Anthony) submitted the question to the Senate; motion decided not in order; yeas 25, nays 29. (See Cong. Globe, p. 1277.)

7. MOTION TO LAY ON THE, AN AMENDMENT TO AN AMENDMENT DOES NOT CARRY WITH IT THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT. 43d Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 321.]

FEBRUARY 22, 1875.

An amendment to an appropriation bill is pending; an amendment to the amendment is offered; a motion is made to lay the amendment to the amendment on the table under the thirtieth rule; a question of order is raised, víz: "Will not the motion to lay the amendment to the amendment on the table carry with it the original amendment?" The Chair (Mr. Ingalls) ruled that it would not. From the decision of the Chair an appeal was taken, and Chair sustained; yeas 42, nays 11. (See Cong. Record, p. 1585.)

8. THE QUESTION OF GRANTING LEAVE TO WITHDRAW A MOTION TO RECONSIDER MAY BE LAID ON THE, WITHOUT CARRYING THE MOTION WITH IT.

44th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 228.]

FEBRUARY 23, 1876.

The question of granting leave to withdraw a motion to reconsider may be laid on the table without carrying the motion to reconsider with it. (See Cong. Record, p. 1235.)

9. MOTION TO RECONSIDER VOTE ON AGREEING TO A CONFERENCE REPORT MAY BE LAID ON THE, WITHOUT CARRYING THE REPORT.

44th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 234.]

FEBRUARY 24, 1876.

A motion to reconsider the vote on agreeing to a report of a committee of conference may be laid on the table without carrying the report. (See Cong. Record, pp. 1253, 1254.)

10. MOTION TO LAY ON THE, NOT ONE OF THE INCIDENTAL MOTIONS IN ORDER PENDING MOTION TO PROCEED TO THE CONSIDERATION OF A BILL.

52d Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 89.]

FEBRUARY 6, 1893.

The Vice-President (Mr. Morton) ruled on a question of order raised, that a motion to lay on the table was not one of the incidental motions in order pending a motion to proceed to the consideration of a bill under rule 9. (See Cong. Record, p. 1242.)

UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT.

1. A Senator may violate.

2. Not a violation of, to lay amendments on the table.

3. After given and action had on a bill, it is too late to object to its con sideration.

1. A SENATOR MAY VIOLATE.

57th Cong., 1st sess.]

FEBRUARY 24, 1902.

In the discussion growing out of the roll call, when the names of Mr. Tillman and Mr. McLaurin, Senators from South Carolina, had not been called, the President pro tempore (Mr. Frye) said: "The Chair can not rule upon a question arising from a unanimous-consent agreement; it is for the Senators themselves to determine what it means." The President pro tempore further said: "The responsibility of violating the agreement must rest with the Senators themselves. The Chair has no power to enforce it." (See Cong. Record, pp. 2125, 2127.)

60th Cong., 2d sess.]

MARCH 2, 1909.

Mr. Heyburn moved to proceed to the consideration of the conference report on S. 2982, "to codify, revise, and amend the penal laws of the United States.” The Vice-President: That motion is in order and is not debatable."

66

Mr. Bailey: "I understand, Mr. President; but the parliamentary inquiry which I desire to make is whether it is permissible, under the rule and practice of the Senate, to move to take up any order of business against a previous order made by unanimous consent."

The Vice-President (Mr. Fairbanks): "The Chair is of the opinion that it is in order. In the case of a unanimous-consent agreement it is for the Senate to determine whether it will violate its agreement." (See Cong. Record, p. 3613.)

2. NOT A VIOLATION OF, TO LAY AMENDMENTS ON THE TABLE. 59th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 478.] MAY 8, 1906.

The bill for regulation of railroad rates being under consideration, On motion by Mr. Tillman to lay on the table, the amendment of Mr. Elkins, together with the other amendments proposed thereto,

An objection was raised to the motion being entertained as being a violation of the unanimous consent agreement of April 30, limiting debate on amendments to fifteen minutes until discussion thereon should be concluded.

The Vice-President (Mr. Fairbanks) submitted the question to the Senate: Is the motion in order? Yeas 51, nays 29.

« PreviousContinue »