May 26, 1919

1\Ir. WATSON. Mr. " :President, on Friday last the- Senator from Washington [1\ir. J:o ~s] made a motion to discharge the Committee on Woman Suffrage- from the further consideration of the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 1) proposin~ an amendmer,tt to the Constitution of · the United States extending the right of suffrage to women. I rise for the purpo e of calling up that motion in order that the joint resolution may be placed on the calendar. · ·

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. SMITH of Georgia. I do- not understand that the motion was formally made, and I do not think it is in order to-day.

The . VICE . . PRESIDENT. It is in order to make the motion 1\f).·. SMITH of Georgia. · Yes ; but it must go over for· a day. 1\Ir. JONES of Washington. The motion was made. on FridaY. under the rule and entered on the J"ournal. .

The VICE PRESIDENT. The motion was made on Friday. The question now is on the motion of the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. · JONES at New Mexico. Mr. President, I think it is proper before the motion is put to state what the Committee on Woman Suffrage ~don Saturday. I presented the question to the Senate on last- Friday · as to the authority and duty of the committee. Under the resolution adopted at the l:ist session of Congress all the old committees were continued in power and authority, and likewise were subjected to the burdens and duties of whatever matters might properly be referred to the com· mittees. After that announcement was made here on Friday I felt that I was under obligations, at least, to relieve myself o:t any duty that might devolve upon that committee, and there- , fore I called a m ee ting of. the committee for Saturday morning last.

W e ha<l a m ee meeting of the committee. Of course, I recognize tlle deli c ate situation with respect to my successor on - the committee, ee , but ut the same time I did not feel that I could avoid taking some action and assuming the responsibility of my posi- · .tion. When we met we decided that the quickest way to bring the joint resolution before the Senate for action was to favor the m o tion made by the Senator from the State of Washington, that the committee be discharged from its further consideration. Under the rules, if we . had made a report from the committee, l on objection that report would have had to lie over a day for con s ideration. The Senator from Washington made this motion on Friday and let it lie over under the rule, so that it can be acted upon at this time, and as representing the Committee on Woman Suffrage I desire to support the motion of the Senator from ·washington.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion to discharge the Committee on Woman Suffrage from the consideration of the joint resolution. . Mr. UNDERWOOD. I ask that the motion be read from the Secretary's desk.

Mr. SMITH of Georgia. I call for the regular order. I do not think it comes up until later in the day under the order of business.

The VICE PRESIDENT. It · is as much in order now as at any other time.

1\lr. SMITH of Georgia. It will occupy the attitude of a resolution. It is in the shape of a resolution and comes up when we reach resolutions. There is a prescribed order of business-petitions, reports of committees, and so forth.

The VICE PRESIDENT. quested by the Senator from Alabama. · The . Secretary read from page 129 of the CoNGRESSIONAL · oRn of May 23, 1919, as follows:

Mr. JONES of Washington. Mr. President, I desire to enter a motion to discharge the Committee Qn Woman Suffrage from the consideration of House joint resolution No. 1 that was referred to that committee to-day, and I ask that the motion lie over for one day under the rules.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts in the chair). That action will be taken.

The VICE PRESIDENT. This is an entirely new question to the Chair. Resolutions that go over under the rule, of course, are never taken up until after the conclusion of routine morning business; but this is not a resolution. This is a motion to discharge a committee. The Chair believes · it was the appropriate time when reports of committees were called to take up the motion. Unless there is an appeal from the Chair, we will go ahead with it. The Senator from Alabama.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Do I understand the ruling of the Chair to be that the Chair is going to proceed with the ordinary business? ~ The VICE PRESIDENT. No. The question has never arisen before, but the Chair believes that under the · call of reports of committees the motion to discharge the committee is in order. 1\fr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. President, I do not intend to delay the Senate by any extended debate on this motion, but I desire to say a few words in giving my reasons why I shall vote against the motion at this itme.

Mr. BORAH. Will' the Senator permit an interruption? _ uption?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Certainly. . ..

Mr. BORAH. May I ask the Senator from Indiana [Mr. WATSON] if it is his purpose to proceed at once to a vote to-day? way.

Mr. WATSON. I think so, if we can reach it on the calendar. My understanding is that a motion to discharge a committee, if caiTied, carries a bill to the calendar, and if, under the rules, it could be taken up to-day, I should be very glad. I have not consulted the Vice President to know whether or not that is in order. l\1r. BORAH. I presume it will be in order if the Senator is disposed to make the motion to take it up at the proper time. I want to know whether the Senator is proposing to do that.

l\Ir. WATSON. I am.

Mr. BORAH. Very well.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Rule XXVI provides that-

All subjects from which a committee shall be discharged shall lie over for one day for consideration, unless by unanimous consent the Senate shall otherwise direct. · · l\Ir. · wATSON. ‘That is my understanding. It has to lie over for a day. .

1\Ir. UNDERWOOD. 1\Ir. President, this body has been called in extraordinary session at an unusually early date. There are nearly two years before under the Constitution the life of the Congress will expire. This particular resolution came over here without any lengthy consideration by the House of Representatives. It was sent through without any extended debate. It is a matter of grave - interest to the American people, whether it be decided in the affirmative or the negative. ·

I recognize that under the rules of the Senate there is a provision for the discharge of a committee, but I also recognize that under the rules of the Senate committees are organized to aid in the transaction of the business of the Senate. You may say in answer to that that whether there is a two-thirds majority of the Senate in favor of the joint resolution or not, there Lg unquestionably a majority in favor of the joint resolution, and a majority determines. All of which is true. But there is an orderly way of doing business, and there is a way to conduct business under the rules of the Senate.

That is the purpose of appointing committees. The rule · requires every piece of legislation that is not passed by unanimous consent to go to some committee of the Senate, not merely that the will of the majority may be worked out in that committee, but the rules of the Senate and the rules of all parliamentary bodies are primarily made to protect . the minority. The majority can always do what it pleases. The rules of a parliamentary body are for two purposes. One is to conduct business in an orderly way, and tl1e other is to protect the minority and give it a reasonable opportunity to be heard on all questions, to present its amendments and present its view to the country, and afford an opportunity to be heard. · If you wipe out the rules and wipe out the committees, you proceed then to the brutal will of the majority. I am one of those who have always believed that the majority have a right to act. · I was one of those .who supported the cloture rule at the last session of the Senate, because I believe a majority have a right to act. I would sup­ _ port a cloture rule in the Senate of this Congress. But that does not excuse the majority from living up to the rule and The motion · will' be read, as re- conducting business in an orderly way.

There is no reason for the immediate consideration of this REG- proposal unless it be that Senators who are in favor of the resolution desire to show that they are more enthusiastic about its immediate adoption than anybody else in the Senate. There can be no question whatever that the majority of the Senate will bring the joint resolution before the Senate for consideration. They . did so two or three times at the last session of Congress, and there can be no question that when they bring it before the Senate they can keep it here until it is disposed of. There are a number of amendments that may be proposed to the joint resolution. Amendments, whether they are adopted or not, are entitled to consideration. ' The committee is already organized. We know that to-morrow or the next <lay the new committees ~ of the Senate as proposed by the majority will be elected. We know that the committee can consider it, can give hearings ou it, and ought to give such hearings. It is idle to say that the question was heard in the last Congress and that that bars the consideration by the committees of this Congress, for the complexion of the Congress has changed, and possibly there may be some change in public sentiment. ·

I see no reason why a motion should be made at this early hour to discharge a committee that has consideration of th¥ matter, everyone knowing that a majority of the members of that committee are in favor of the resolution and will report it in an orderly way, if they are allowed to uo so. The only purpose that can be accomplished by this procedure is possibly to hasten the passage of the resolution by a day or two. I can not see, if the resolution commands a two-thirds vote, why this is ' necessary; and, if it can not command a two-thirds vote, then there is no object to be accomplished by the motion anyI do not think we ought to make the precedent in the very first act of this new Congress of br~ldng down the committees. of breaking down the protection of' the minority by proposing at once to discharge a committee that has not had the opportunity to consider this resolution, for if it had considered it the committee would have reported the resolution to the Senate. It can get just as good a place on the calendar and have practically as early a hearing, barring possibly a day or two, by being considered in the proper and orderly way, being reported by the committee and brought up from the calendar in due course, as it can by this motion. For that reason I think a protest ought to be made against this method. _

Of course I recognize what the rule of the Senate is for. It is . to prevent a committee from suppressing legislation that u majority of the Senate desires to consider. If this resolution had been before this committee for days or weeks possibly, and there had been no consideration of it and no report, and a majority of the Senate desired to consider the resolution-- 1\Ir. JONES of New Mexico rose.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Just one moment. I recognize that in such case it would be in perfect order and perfectly proper to move to discharge the committee. That, however, is not the case. There is no Senator here who says that this committee is not in favor of the joint resolution; there is not a Senator here who says that this committee in the new Congress has had an opportunity to consider it. It is simply adopting revolutionary tactics in the Senate in order to railroad a piece of legislation through as the very opening method of this Congress.

Now I yield to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. JONES of New Mexico. Does not the Senator from Alabama recognize the fact that the Committee on Woman Suffrage met - on last Saturday and considered this question, and would not that have any bearing upon the argument which he is now presenting?

1\fr. UNDERWOOD. The committee had possession of the documents, did they not?

Mr. JONES of New Mexico. The committee had possession of the documents; they considered the situation; and, in order to expedite the consideration of tlJ.e resolution by the Senate, instead of reporting the resolution favorably, the committee decided to support the motion of the Senator from Washington in order that there might not be any delay in coming to a vote upon the resolution. . Mr. UNDER:WOOD. I am always glad to listen to the Senator's arguments, and he always has sound grounds behind them. The Senator says that the Committee on Woman Suffrage pursued this course in order to expedite the matter. I suppose there was a majority of the committee present?

Mr. JONES o:f New Mexico. There was.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. With · a majority of the committee present and desiring to expedite the resolution, instead of ordering some member of the committee, either the present acting chairman of the committee or the Senator who will be the chairman in a few days, to report the resolution to the calendar-and it would have been on the calendar right now if that course had been pursued-instead of doing that, conducting it in the orderly way, bringing the resolution up here in the most expeditious way, the committee resolved in favor of adopting revolutionary methods. I can not see how such action expedites the legislation. .

Mr. JONES of New Mexico. It seems to me the Senator from Alabama overlooks another rule of the Senate, that any report of a committee must lie over for one day in order to be considered, except by unanimous consent.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. That does not change this proposition in the least. ·

Mr. JONES of New Mexico. It changes the proposition to this extent, that by the committee supporting this motion the matter can be brought to a vote to-day by a majority of the Senate, and if it came up on a report of the committee any Senator could object and require the report to go over for one clay.

Mr. Ul\TDERWOOD. Now, my friend from New Mexico is again stepping into deep water, for the President of the Senate has just announced a ruling that, if this motion is adopted, on , objection it must go over for one day before it can be considered, and that is the rule of the Senate. So the situation will not be expedited at all. _

Therefore I ask why these revolutionary methods? Why was 1t necessary for a committee that had the power to report the joint resolution and had the power to bring the measure before the Senate to disregard the rules of the Senate, disregard the situation in the case, when it would really have expedited the matter if it had pursued the usual course in an orderly and proper manner? That I can not understand.

1\fr. BORAH. Mr. President--

The VICE ' PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from .Alabama to convey. yield to the Senator from Idaho?

1\Ir. UNDERWOOD. I yield.

Mr. BORAH. May I ask the Senator from New Mexico why it was that the committee thought it more desirable to support a motion to discharge the committee than to report the joint resolution?

Mr. JONES of New Mexico. As I have already stated, it was for the purpose of expedition. ,

Mr. BORAH. In what respect? It does not- change the rule at all. The matter goes over a day under the same circumstances.

1\fr. JONES of New Mexico. It was the understanding of the committee that it would expedite the consideration oLthe. joint resolution to-day.

Mr. S1V ANSON. Mr. President, there has , been a specific ruling on this question, which is found in Gilfry's Precedents question? in which 1\I.r~ Pettigrew, on the 26th of February, 1901 made ~ motion to discharge a committee. It came up on the Zsth and Mr. Platt, of Connecticut, ra.i ed a point of order— '

That the consideration of the resolution was not in order during the I morning hour; that it not only proposed to discharge the committee from I tlre consideration of the bill but to consider it on the same day ' and I therefore the resolution was not in order

The President pro tempore sustained the question of order and decided that the resolution was not in order. j It is not stated whether the President pro tempore decided so on account of the motion being made during the morning , h~ or because of the motion then to proceed to its considera- , tion. Clearly the motion ought to go over for one day ; there is no dispute about that. Nothing can be considered in the morning hour except by unanimous consent. It seems to me that after the morning hour has been concluded this motion would come up regularly, but clearly it would have to go over under this decision until to-morrow for action upon it, unless by nnani· - mous consent objection was waived.

l\1r. JONES of New Mexico. I do not so consider the decision. just referred to by the Senator from Virginia. I think it is quite probable that this joint resolution, after it goes to the calendar . must then wait at least until 1 o'clock, or until the morning business shall have been disposed of, but that then, like anY. other measure upon th~ calendar, it can be brought up on motion ..

Mr. SWANSON. The decision was specific on this point. The resolution was introduced on the 26th of February, and it came up on the 28th, when a point of order was · made against it on two grounds: First, that it could not be considered during the morning hour-until morning business was disposed of· and second, that it could not be brought up for consideration ~n th~ same day, except by unanimous consent; that all motions must lie over for one day. The point of order was sustained by the · Chair, and no appeal was taken from the decision, which was specific.

Mr. JONES of New Mexico. I can the Senator's attention to the point that the heading of this decision, or that which might be called the syllabus of the decision, in capital letters simply declares, "Motion to discharge not in order in morning hour." That was the point that was decided by the Chair at that time.

Mr. SWANSON. If the Senator from New Mexico will read the decision, he will find that the point of order was made on two grounds: First, that the resolution could · not be considered in the morning hour; and, second, that even if the motion carried it could not be considered on that day but would have to go over one day. The point of order was sustained, as the. Senator will find if he reads the decision.

· Mr. REED. Mr. President, I should like to ask if the Senator from New .1\Ie-"Uco contends that the syllabus to a decision ever controls the decision or that it affords even an index to govern in any way the decision unless the syllabus is written by the deciding power itself? In this case, of course, it was written by: some Public Printer. '

Mr. JONES of New Mexico. Nobody knows better than does the Senator from Missouri-and I suppose he will concede that it is a subject . with which we are all quite familiar-that what he has stated is undoubtedly sound; but where a case involves two propositions, either one of which might be good, and the head· ing or syllabus indicates the ground on which it was decided, I think the syllabus can be taken into consideration for that purpose.

Mr. REED. In other words, the Senator thinks that a Public Printer can decide what part of the decision of the Senate is controlling.

Mr. JONES of New Mexico. I do not take it that a Public Printer framed these rules or made the syllabus to them· I take it that that was done by the Committee on Rules of the 'senate as going to indicate and make explicit what the rules intended

Mr. REED. But it is not a rule; it is a decision we are talking about. ·

Mr. JONES of New Mexico. Yes; but it is in this volume that we are talking about.

1\fr. Sl\IOOT. 1\lr. President, I think the rules ru·e very plain that this discussion is out of place. I will merely refer to Rule XXVI, paragraph 2 of which provides:

All reports of committees and motions to discharge a committ e e from the consideration of the subject, and subject from which a committee shall be discharged, shall lie over for one day for con iueration unless by unanimous consent the Senate shall otherwi e direct. ' . I do not think that the case cited by the Senator from Virginia [Mr. SwANSON] is parallel; but our rules are o plain on the question it seems to me that there is not any n e ed of discu ion.

Mr. JONES of New Mexico obtained the door.

Mr. SMITH of Georgia. Will the Senator yield to me for a

Mr. JONES of New Mexico. I will yield in a moment. I desire to call attention to and to read the decision referred to by the Senator from Virginia. ·

The Presid-ent pro tempore [Mr. Frye] laid before the · Senate · the this ~~~o~~~~~:e~~~dtyca~~n P~~~~~o~n tr~~ ~~ i~~t~t c~~~=g~ . of the bill · (H. . R. 6882) limiting hours of . daily service of laborers · and . mechanics-

And so forth.

Mr. SMOOT. · I call for the regular order.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair has already ruled, probably incorrectly, -that this motion to discharge ~e committee wru; before the · Senate. No objection has been made to debate; but the Chair hM heretofore ruled on all such motions that prior to the hour of 1 o'clock they are not debatable, and unless there is an appeal from the Chair--

1\Ir. SMITH of Georgia. Mr. President, I wish to ask . the Ashurst Senator from New Mexico one question, and that is, if he relies Ball upon the syllabus of the decision, then is it not true that the Beckham decision of the Senate was that a motion to discharge a com­ Borah mittee, going o'Ver a day, could not be considered during the morning hour?

The VICE PRESIDEl'{T. That decision is perfectly plain. Chamberlain The motion in that case was not the same as the pending motion Colt at all ; that · motion was to discharge a committee and then g~~~: proceed to the immediate consideration of the question.

Mr. SMITH of Georgia. I desired to ask the Senator from Dial New :Mexico a question. He insisted that the syllabus con­ Elkins trolled ; that the effect of the decision was that the motion had Fall to go over one day, and that it could not be considered in the morning hom·. If he is right about that, is not our entire pro­ France cedure now out of order?

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair thinks that is true. Gore Gay

Mr. SMITH of Arizona and Mr. SMOOT called for · the regular order.

Mr. 'JONES of New Mexico. It is entirely immaterial to me. . What I am after is to have this motion acted upon now.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair has ruled, and that ruling standS unless there is an appeal, -that this is not a debatable question. The question is, Shall the committee be discharged?

Mr. · noRAH. 1\lr. President, I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. Is that motion in order at this time?

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair so ruled, and there was Borah no appenl.

1\lr. BORAH. The Chair has since modified his opinion, has Dial he not? Fall

The VICE PRESIDENT. No ; the Chair stated that he did not know whether he was ruling right or not, but lle -was ruling. Ashurst Mr. SMITH of Georgia. Then I desire to enter au appeal Ball from theldecision of the Chair as to this matter being in order Capper at this time.

Mr. 'JONES of New Mexico, I make the point of order that Colt the appeal comes too late.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will ha-ve to . -sustain the point ol order of the Senator from New Mexico, that · the a-pp-eal Edge comes too late. The question is, Shall the Committee on , Woman Suffrage be discharged from the further consideration of the joint r . resolution? · ·

Mr. UNDERWOOD. On . that I a:sk for the yeas and nays. Hale . Mr. WII .L IAl\fS. Upon that ques:tion I wish .to be : heard.

The VICE .PRESIDENT. The Chair has ruled that it is not a debatable question befo1·e J. · o'clock.

lHr. WILLI.Al\fS. I understood . the Chair to rule . that the point of order is not a debatable question.

The VICE PRESIDENT. No; that the motion to discharge is not debatable before 1 o'clock Jlllder the rules of. the Senate. . te.

Mr. SMITH of Georgia. Mr. President, does • the Chair Itlle that an app-eal can not be taken from the decision of the Chair?

The VICE PRESIDENT. No; the Senator can a-ppeal :from that decision, if he wishes to do so, because that i-s the.last one made.

1\Ir. SMITH of Georgia. The decision I desired to appeal :from was the decision of the Chair that this motion · could come up at this time.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair understands that; but the Senator did not appeal until there was intervening - business; that was the trouble. . Mr. REED. What intervening business?

Mr. W ADSWORTII. Did not the Chair permit it to intervene? ~

The VICE · PRESIDENT. The Chair permitted it -until the Senator from-utah [Mr. SMOOT] raised the question. .Ball

Mr. WADSWORTH. Tiid the Senator from · Utah . raise the question?

Mr. SMOOT. · Yes; I called for the regular order, because it seemed to t111e . that it was a waste of time, under the · :rule-s of body, to -talk about the question whether this matter can be discussed now or acted upon on this day. ·

1\fr. WADSWORTH. It seems to me an inconsiStency to deny the right of appeal because it ' is too late, and at the same time shut off debate, no matter how late objection to debate is raised.

Mr. SMOOT. Regular order!

The VICE . PRESIDENT. The question is--

Mr. SMITH of Georgia. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The ·Secretary will call the roll. The Secretary called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names :

Gronna l\lcNary Simmons

Hale 1\iartin Smith, Ariz.

Bankhead Harding Moses Smith, Ga.

Harris Myers Smith, Md.

Harrison Nelson Smith, s. c.

Brandegee Henderson · New · Smoot Calder Hitchcock Newberry Spencer Capper Johnson,CaliL Norrm Stanley

Jones, N. Mex. Nugent Sterling

Jones, Wash. Overman Sutherland

: {€~~fek ~:: Townsend Swanson

Curtis Kenyon Penrose . Trammell

Keyes Phelan Underwood

Dillingham King Phipps Wadsworth Knox Pittman Walsh, :Mass. • La Follette Poindexter Walsh, l\lont. Fernald Lenroot Pomerene Warren Fletcher Lodge Ransdell Watson

McCormick Reed Williams

Frelinghuysen McCumber Robinson Wolcott

McKellar Sheppard

McLE:an Sherman

The VICE PRESIDENT. Ninety Senators have answered to the roll call. There is a quorum present. ·

Mr. SMITH of Georgia. I move to lay upon the table -the motion to discharge the committee; and on that I call for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays having been ordered and taken, the result was announced-yeas 27, nay.s 64, as follows:

TEAS-27.

Bankhead Fletcher Overman • Smith, S. · C. Beckham Gay Penrose Swanson

Gore 'Reed Trammell

Brandegee Harrison · Shields Underwo.od

King Simmons Wadsworth

Dillingham Lodge Smith, Ga. Wolcott

. Moses Smith, Md.

N.AYS-64.

Harding McKellar Ransdell

Harris McLean Robinson

Calder Henderson McNary Sheppard

Johnson · , Calif. Myers Sherman

Chamberlain J'ones, N. Me.x. Nelson Smith, Ariz.

J'ones, Wash. New . Smoot

Culberson Kellogg Newberry Spencer Cummins Kendrick Norris Stanley Curtis Kenyon Nugent Sterling

Keyes Owen Sutherland