Decisions of the House of Representatives on Points of Order.*

ADJOURN.

Not in order to entertain two consecutive motions to.

The Speaker decided that it is not in order to entertain two consecutive motions to adjourn, if no other business of the House has intervened at the time the motion was made. (Journal H. R., 1843, p. 361.)

The point of order was raised that the motion was out of order, because no business had intervened since the last motion to adjourn had been decided in the negative. Speaker decided point well taken. H. R., 1885, p. 920.)

Motion to, not in order, when previous question called and sustained.

(Journal

The Speaker decided that a motion to adjourn was not in order when the previous question had been called and sustained, and was still pending. The House sustained the decision. (Journal H. R., 1857, p. 509.)

Motion to, not in order, when hour of adjournment is extended for a specific business, until gone through with.

The Speaker decided that a motion to adjourn was not in order when the House had extended the hour of adjournment for a specific object, until the business for which the adjournment was extended had been disposed of. An appeal was taken and laid on the table.

H. R., 1864, p. 783.)

Motion to, always in order.

(Journal

That according to former rulings, a motion to adjourn is not in order until the bill under consideration is disposed of. The Speaker decided the point of order to be not well taken. (Journal H. R., 1881, p. 930.)

Motion to, takes precedence over motion to adjourn to a stated time.

The point of order was raised that a motion to adjourn takes precedence over a motion to adjourn to a stated time. The Speaker decided the point of order well taken. (Journal H. R., 1889, p. 938.)

ADJOURNMENT.

Final, motion to amend resolution for.

The Speaker decided that a motion to amend a resolution for the final adjournment of the Legislature, by adding thereto the following: "Pro

These decisions are published as found in the Journals of the House of Representatives and the Legislative Record. Their correctness as rulings is left to the judgment of the reader.

ADJOURNMENT-Concluded.

vided, 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 re-assemble 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.)

Two-thirds vote not necessary to extend time for.

A question of order was raised, that it required a two-thirds vote to pass a resolution extending the time for adjournment. The Speaker decided the point of order not well taken. (Journal H. R., 1870, p. 266.)

Extension of time for, requires suspension of the rules.

Mr. Brooks submitted the point of order that the morning hour for adjournment was fixed by the rules of the House and could only be extended by a suspension of the rule. The Speaker decided the point of order well taken. (Journal H. R., 1891, p. 1034.)

From Wednesday until the following Monday not in contravention of Constitution.

A motion was made that when the House adjourns this Wednesday evening it be to meet on next Monday evening at 9 o'clock. The point of order was submitted that it was unconstitutional for the House to adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the Senate. The Speaker decided the point of order not well taken; that an adjournment of the House from Wednesday till the succeeding Monday was not an adjournment for more than three days as provided by the Constitution of Pennsylvania, Sunday being a dies non. See Buckalew on the Constitution of Pennsylvania, edition 1883, p. 52. Construction: It has long been held that the three days limitation in this section (section 14, art. 2) is exclusive of Sundays, and such is the settled construction. Therefore, whether natural or secular days were intended by the authors of the limitation is not now a question of practical importance. Judicial Opinion; West Philadelphia Passenger Ry. Co. v. Union Passenger Ry. Co., and Bancroft v. same, 29 Legal Intel. 196, 4 Leg. Gaz. 193. (Journal H. R., 1897, p. 1114.)

ADVERTISEMENT.

Of notice of local or special bills must be published in two papers in each of the counties affected.

The point of order raised was that advertisement of local or special bills shall be in at least two newspapers, published in each of the counties to be affected. The Speaker submitted the question to the House for its decision. The House decided the point of order well taken. (Journal H. R., 1876, p. 790.)

ADVERTISEMENT-Concluded.

On third reading of bill No. 224, the point of order was raised that the bill affects the counties of Allegheny, Westmoreland, Fayette, Greene and Washington; that the notice of this bill was only advertised in Allegheny, in one paper, and in two papers in Washington, and not published in Westmoreland, Fayette or Greene, and, therefore, not properly advertised, the principal office of the corporation being situated in the city of Pittsburg. The Speaker decided the point of order well taken. The House sustained the decision of the Chair. (Journal H. R., 1876, pp. 825, 826, 827.)

The Speaker ruled that a bill is not properly before the House, it affecting two counties, when notice for the proposed application has not been advertised in the two counties (the locality affected thereby), as required by section eight of the third article of the Constitution. (Journal H. R., 1878, p. 837.)

Proof of publication of, must be exhibited before final vote is taken on local bill. A local bill being under consideration on second reading, the point of order was raised that the bill could not be considered as it had never been advertised. The Speaker decided that before the bill passed finally proof of advertisement must be shown, but that he could not rule it off the calendar on second reading. (Journal H. R., 1887, p. 1256.)

Seal of the court not necessary to verify signature of justice to affidavit of publication of.

The Speaker decided that the signature of the justice, or other person before whom affidavit of the pubilsher of the notice required in case of local or special bills is made, is not necessary to be verified by the seal of the court. (Journal H. R., 1879, p. 490.)

AMENDMENTS.

Previously refusing to consider, in order to renew motion so to do.

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.)

In the second degree in order.

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., 1849, p. 525.)

AMENDMENTS Continued.

Not germane, out of order.

The Speaker decided that it was not in order to amend a bill by adding to it matter different from the subject matter of the bill. (Journal H. R., 1858, p. 340.)

The Speaker decided that the first section being under consideration, it was not in order to strike out all after the enacting clause, and insert a new bill, containing several different sections, which were not germane to the first section of the bill under consideration. The House sustained the decision. (Journal H. R., 1858, p. 592.)

A bill for the erection of a monument to the memory of soldiers and sailors of Pennsylvania, who were slain or lost their lives in the late rebellion, being under consideration, an amendment was proposed, as follows: "Provided, That no contract shall be made or money paid for such monument until a certificate is first obtained from the Superintendent of the Soldiers' Orphans that all soldiers' orphans in the State have been provided for, either in the schools or at home." The Speaker decided that the amendment was not in order, not being germane to the bill under consideration. (Journal H. R., 1870, p. 899.)

A resolution approving the action of Congress in passing resolutions for the impeachment of the President, and approving of the course of Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War, being under consideration, a motion was made to amend the resolution by inserting that "the Senate of the United States, sitting as a high court of impeachment, is sworn to try the accused according to the Constitution and laws of the Union, and a true judgment find according to the facts and the law; and, being thus under a solemn obligation, we trust that the Senate will not be influenced by partizan zeal or prejudice, but will show, by their finding, that the confidence which the people have reposed in that co-ordinate branch of government was not misplaced." The Speaker decided that the amendment was not in order, not being germane to the question before the House. The House sustained the decision. (Journal H. R., 1868, pp. 964, 965.)

A question of order was raised, that "An act to revise, amend and consolidate existing laws for the assessment and collection of State taxes and county and township rates and levies," being under consideration, a motion to go into committee of the whole for special amendment for the purpose of taxing petroleum, coal and whisky, articles that, by the present laws, are not now subject to taxation, the amendment, being for the purpose of revenue alone, is not germane to the subject before the House. The Speaker submitted the question to the House, and it was decided in the negative. (Journal H. R., 1869, p. 1093.)

Not germane to section under consideration, not in order.

Mr. Crothers submitted the point of order "that the amendment proposed was not in order as it was not germane to the section under consideration." Decided well taken. (Journal H. R., 1893, p. 1016.)

AMENDMENTS Continued.

Made in Committee of the Whole, fall when leave to sit again is refused.

The Speaker decided that when the committee of the whole rises, reports progress, and is refused leave to sit again, the amendments made in committee of the whole are not parts of the bill unless so ordered by a vote of the House. (Journal H. R., 1858, p. 463.)

Agreed to, motion to strike out certain words of, in order.

The Speaker decided that it was in order to strike from a subject before the House a part of certain words which have, in connection with other words, in the form of an amendment, been already voted upon and agreed to. The House sustained the decision. (Journal H. R., 1862, p. 344.)

Changing original purpose of bill not in order.

The point of order was raised that an amendment proposed was not in order, as it would change the original purpose of the bill; also that the amendment contained more than one subject. The Speaker submitted the point of order to the House for decision. The House decided the point of order well taken. (Journal H. R., 1876, p. 196.)

Made by committee, after recommitment, first in order.

The point of order was raised that a bill having been recommitted, when on second reading, to a committee for amendment, and an amendment having been inserted by that committee, the first question should be put on the amendment of the committee. The Speaker decided the point of order well taken. (Journal H. R., 1876, p. 204.)

Containing the subject matter of another pending bill, not in order.

The Speaker decided that the last ten sections of bill No. 463 are improperly in the bill, and should be ruled out, for the reason that the bill was amended by committee by adding ten sections, from nineteenth to the end of the bill, which are same as corresponding sections of bill No. 229, in that it provides for same objects, etc. (House Journal, 1879, p. 929.)

What in order.

The Speaker decided that it was in order to make a motion to amend a bill by striking out certain words, notwithstanding a motion to strike out the same words together with others and insert had been voted down. (Journal H. R., 1883, p. 89.)

What constitutional and germane.

An amendment having been proposed, the point of order was raised "that the amendment proposing a tax on the rights, privileges and franchises of companies and corporations is not germane to the bill proposing a tax upon petroleum exported out of the State, and is in conflict with section one, article three, of the Constitution. And that the ruling of the