« ForrigeFortsett »
"One-fifth of those present" has always been construed to mean one-fifth of those who vote on the question of ordering the yeas and nays, regardless of the fact as to whether or not a quorum is present. (See also Record, 1, 49, vol. 17, part 1, p. 176.)
See ruling by Speaker Carlisle -Journal, 2, 50, p. 204. See also ruling by Speaker Reed.—Journal, 1, 51, p. 903.
It is not in order to repeat a demand for the yeas and nays, which has been once refused-Cong. Globe, 1, 26, p. 304; 2, 30, p. 623; Journal, 1, 33, p. 939-unless there has been intervening business.
An order of the yeas and nays-Journal, 1, 19, p. 796; 1, 30, p. 405-or a refusal of the yeas and nays-Cong. Globe, 2, 30, p. 623-may be reconsidered, except on a motion to adjourn. Where a motion to reconsider a vote by which the yeas and nays have been ordered prevails, the question immediately recurs on ordering the yeas and nays, when, if again ordered by one-fifth of the members voting, a further motion to reconsider would not be in order.-Journal, 1, 45, p. 290.
The yeas and nays can not be taken on any question in Committee of the Whole.-Cong. Globe, 1, 28, p. 618; 1, 47, p. 641.
An appeal can not be withdrawn after the yeas and nays have been ordered except by unanimous consent.-Journal, 1, 51, p. 771.
After the yeas and nays are ordered and a member has auswered to his name, the roll-call must progress without debate.-Cong. Globe, 1, 31, p. 1686.
It may be said that this is the unbroken practice of the House, and this applies equally in the case of a "call of the House." To interrupt a roll-call (except by unanimous consent) would lead to almost inextricable confusion, and indirectly thwart if not defeat the will and order of the House.
A member of a committee of conference, according to the recent practice, is understood to have leave of the House to be absent on the duties of his committee, and the same right is accorded a member of a committee which is authorized to sit during the sessions of the House; but this does not authorize the recording of their votes after the roll has been called.— See RULE XV.
Whenever on any question a quorum fails to vote, either by the Speaker's count or by tellers, a demand for the yeas and nays takes precedence over a motion for a call of the House.Journal, 3, 46, p. 596.
The question of consideration can not be raised against a proposition on which the yeas and nays have been ordered, even though an adjournment has intervened. Journal, 1, 51, p. 941.
A member has the right to change his vote before the decis ion of the question has been finally and conclusively pronounced by the Chair.-Journal, 2, pp. 357, 358. But not afterwards.
And it is not competent for a member to have the Journal amended, so as to have the record of his vote changed upon a representation that such vote, though recorded as given, was given under a misapprehension.-Journals, 2, 8, p. 167; 2, 27, p. 263.
A member has a right to have an erroneous record of his vote corrected after the announcement of the result of a vote.Journal, 1, 35, pp, 586, 587.
This must be done, of course, before the House has proceeded to other business. In that event the correction must be made when the Journal is read for approval the next morning.
Where the yeas and nays are ordered and taken on a pending proposition and no quorum appears, the order of the House for the yeas and nays remains in force until reconsidered, and should the House adjourn without disposing of such pending question, it would come up after the reading of the Journal on the following day, unless it was being considered on a day as signed a committee (as, for instance, the Committee on the District of Columbia), when it would go over as unfinished business and be first in order when such committee again had a day.— Journal, 1, 49, pp. 1566, 1885.
And such is also the practice with respect to private business on Friday, when (unless the previous question had been ordered) the bill would go over to the next Friday.
The rule does not require either that the names of absentees or members not voting, shall be entered on the Journal or read to the House.-Journal, 1,51, p. 1028.
CONTESTS FOR SEATS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FIFTY-FIRST CONGRESS.
The following is a list of contests for seats in the House of Representatives for the Fifty-first Congress, as shown by a letter from the Clerk of the last House, submitted in compliance with the act of March 2, 1887 (see ante, page 384):
G. W. Atkinson against John O. Pendleton, from the first Congressional district of the State of West Virginia.
Henry Bowen against John A. Buchanan, from the ninth Congressional district of the State of Virginia.
James R. Chalmers against James Bright Morgan, from the second Congressional district of the State of Mississippi.
L. B. Eaton against James Phelan, from the tenth Congressional district of the State of Tennessee.
L. P. Featherstone against W. H. Cate, from the first Congressional district of the State of Arkansas.
Fred L. Goodrich against Robert Bullock, from the second Congressional district of the State of Florida.
James Hill against Thos. C. Catchings, from the third Congressional district of the State of Mississippi.
Henry Kernaghan against Charles E. Hooker, from the seventh Congressional district of the State of Mississippi.
John M. Langston against. Edward C. Venable, from the fourth Congressional district of the State of Virginia.
J. V. McDuffie against Louis W. Turpin, from the fourth Congressional district of the State of Alabama.
J. H. McGinnis against John D. Alderson, from the third Congressional district of the State of West Virginia.
Thomas E. Miller against William Elliott, from the seventh Congressional district of the State of South Carolina.
Sidney E. Mudd against Barnes Compton, from the fifth Congressional district of the State of Maryland.
Francis B. Posey against William F. Parrett, from the first Congressional district of the State of Indiana.
Charles B. Smith against James M. Jackson, from the fourth Congressional district of the State of West Virginia.
Frank H. Threet against Richard H. Clarke, from the first Congressional district of the State of Alabama.
Edmund Waddill against George D. Wise, from the third Congressional district of the State of Virginia.
NOTE.-The cases of Atkinson vs. Pendleton, and Smith vs. Jackson, West Virginia; Featherston vs. Cate, Arkansas; Mudd vs. Compton, Maryland; McDuffie vs. Turpin, Alabama; Waddill vs. Wise, Langston vs. Venable, of Virginia, and Miller vs. Elliott, South Carolina, have been settled in favor of the contestants; and those of Bowen vs. Buchanan, Virginia; Posey vs. Parrett, Indiana; Threet vs. Clarke, Alabama, and Chalmers vs. Morgan, Mississippi, in favor of the sitting members.