Decisions of the House of Representatives on Questions of Order.

Quere. Can a majority of the House appropriate an afternoon session to the consideration of a bill, which could not be reached in regular order, or does it require two thirds? Undecided.-Journal 1826–7, p. 351.

After information has been given to the Senate, that the House insists upon its non-concurrence in an amendment by the Senate, a motion to recede from the non-concurrence is not in order.*-Journal H. R., 1827-8, p. 781.

The same principle is decided in Journal, 1816–7, p. 708.

The proceedings of the House cannot be expunged from the Journal, under the Constitution and uniform practice of the House, without the unanimous consent of the members present.-Journal H. R., 1832-3, p. 728.

The Speaker submitted to the House for decision: Is the motion to discharge the committee of conference, and recede from its non-concurrence in order? The House decided in the negative.—Journal H. R., 1840, p. 360.

The Speaker submitted to the House for decision: Whether a motion to reconsider the vote given for the explusion of a member by the constitutional

*In this case a committee of conference was appointed, and reported that they could not agree.

majority, and his seat declared vacated, is in order? The House decided in the affirmative.-Journal H. R., 1840, pp. 859-61.

The Speaker decided that the House having, on yesterday, adopted a resolution by a vote of two thirds, that it would proceed to the reconsideration of a certain bill when it met the next morning, the bill is therefore in order. The House sustained the decision.-Journal H. R., 1840, pp. 946-50.

The Speaker decided that a call for the previous question is in order during the pendency of an appeal from the decision of the Speaker. The House sustained the decision.-Journal H. R., 1840, pp. 946-8.

A motion was made to proceed to the consideration of Senate amendments to the bill entitled "An act to repeal certain acts in relation to the Philadelphia and Trenton Railroad Company;" whereupon the Speaker submitted to the House, for decision, whether the motion could be entertained, inasmuch as the House had previously, on the same day, refused to consider said amendments, though other business had intervened. The House decided in the affirmative.-Journal H. R., 1841, pp. 977, 978.

The Speaker decided that it is not in order, under the fourth joint rule of the Senate and House of Representatives, to incorporate with the bill which refers to the Canal Commissioners, a provision relating to the per diem pay of members of the Legislature, it being a subject different from that under consideration. The House sustained the decision.Journal H. R., 1843, p. 356.

The Speaker decided that it is not in order to entertain two consecutive motions to adjourn, if no

other business of the House had intervened at the time the motion was made.-Journal H. R., 1843, p. 361.

The Speaker decided that it is not in order for a committee, in a report, when referring to a report made at a previous session of the Legislature by a member of this House, to call said member by name. The House sustained the decision.-Journal H. R., 1843, p. 594.

The Speaker decided that a bill originating in the Senate, and passed by the House of Representatives, with amendments, which are concurred in by the Senate with amendments, and returned to the House, was still subject to amendment by the House, the proposed amendment being, in his opinion, only in the second degree. The House sustained the decision.-Journal H. R., March 8, 1849.

The Speaker decided that a report of the committee of the whole, embracing subjects not appertaining to the original bill, is not in order.-Journal H. R., 1850, p. 1120.

The Speaker decided that is not in order for the minority of a committee of conference to make a report, giving the reasons for dissent from the report of a majority. The House sustained the decision.Journal H. R., 1850, pp. 1216, 1218.

The Speaker decided that it is not in order to strike from a bill all after the enacting clause, and insert another bill different from that contained in the original bill. The House sustained the decision.→ Journal H. R., 1853, pp. 931, 932.

The Speaker submitted to the House the question whether it is in order to amend the bill entitled "An act to authorize the city of Philadelphia to sub

"scribe to the capital stock of the Hempfield Rail"road Company," by adding the following proviso, viz: "Provided, That the said subscriptions shall "not be allowed, or lawful, unless the Legislature "of Virginia shall, at its present session, grant to the "Pittsburg and Steubenville Railway Company the "right of way across the territory of Virginia, on "such reasonable terms as may be satisfactory to said "Pittsburg and Steubenville Railroad Company, "and the right to connect their said railroad with the "Steubenville and Indiana Railroad." It was decided in the affirmative.-Journal H. R., 1853, pp. 391, 392.

The Speaker decided that a question, although embracing different propositions, could not be divided after these propositions had been amended and acted upon separately and independently, and the question thus blending them together, was presented for the final action of the House. The House sustained the decision.-Journal H. R., 1853, pp. 655, 656, 657. The Speaker decided that a motion to amend a resolution for the final adjournment of the Legislature, by adding thereto the following: "Provided, That in order to avoid the expense attendant upon the meeting of the Convention of the two Houses, in October next, to which it stands adjourned, the members of the two Houses shall reassemble previous to the final adjournment of the Legislature, for the purpose of electing a person to represent this Commonwealth in the Senate of the United States, in accordance with the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the Commonwealth," was in order. The House overruled the decision of the Speaker.—Journal H. R., 1855, p. 826.

The House having refused the Committee of the Whole House leave to sit again upon a bill, the bill being again before the House, pending the question, "Will the House agree to the first section?" a motion was made to reconsider the vote refusing the Committee of the Whole leave to sit again. The Speaker ruled the motion out of order.

The Speaker decided that amendments made by the Senate to the appropriation bill, inserting new sections relating to banks, institutions, and companies, and to the duties of the Auditor General, were out of order. An appeal was taken. The House sustained the decision.-Journal H. R. 1855, pp. 1023, 1024.

A resolution was offered, proposing to hold an afternoon session, for the purpose of considering particular bills. A division of the question was called for, the first division to embrace the holding of an afternoon session, which was agreed to. On the question of the adoption of the second division of the resolution, which was "for the purpose of considering Senate bill, No. 16, entitled 'An act to incorporate the Stroudsburg Bank,' and the bills of similar import," the Speaker decided that it would require a vote of two thirds. An appeal was taken, and the decision of the Speaker sustained.-Journal H. R., 1856, p. 626.

The Speaker decided that the previous question being called, pending a motion to postpone indefinitely, the main question would be on the motion to postpone indefinitely. The House reversed the decision. -Journal H. R., 1857, p. 495.

The Speaker decided that a motion to adjourn was