And several amendments being made to the same, and others under consideration,

The previous question was called for by Mr. Gholson, and being demanded by a majority of the members present,

It was taken in the form prescribed by the rules of the house, to wit: "Shall the main question be now put?"

78.

And passed in the affirmative, yeas 83, nays

A motion was then made by Mr. Pitkin, further to amend the said bill: which

The speaker decided to be out of order, as the house had determined that the main question should be put, which main question the speaker declared to be, "Shall the bill be engrossed and read the third time?" and which puts aside the amendments which had been proposed, and precluded further amendment.

From which decision of the speaker, Mr. Pitkin appealed to the house,

And the question was taken, "Is the decision of the chair correct?"

And passed in the affirmative, yeas 98, nays 68.

March 21, 1814.

The order of the day for the house to resolve itself into a committee of the whole on the bill to alter and establish post routes, was called for:

And the speaker being in the act of putting he question on the said call,

Another member asked for the consideration of another order of the day, which latter call was declared by the speaker (Mr. Cheves) to be out of order.

From which decision of the speaker an appeal was taken to the house.

And on the question, "Is the decision of the speaker correct?" It passed in the affirmative.

April 2, 1814.

The following resolution was submitted for consideration by Mr. Grundy:

Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire into the expediency of establishing a national bank.

The house proceeded to consider the said resolution: when, a question of order was raised by Mr. Wright, whether the same was in order, as a bill, having apparently the same object, had been referred to a committee of the whole house, and had not been acted upon.

The speaker decided that the said resolution was in order.

From which decision of the speaker, an appeal was taken to the house:

And on the question, " Is the decision of the speaker correct?" it passed in the affirmative.

April 5th, 1814.

The house resolved itself into a committee of the whole house, on the bill for the relief of persons who, by mistake, made wrong entries on the public lands, and after some time spent therein, the speaker resumed the chair, and Mr. Stanford reported, that the committee had had the said bill under consideration, and made an amendment thereto, by striking out the first section of the same; upon which the speaker decided, that the report of the committee of the whole was not in

order, because the amendment struck out the whole bill.

A motion was then made by Mr. Taylor, that the said bill be postponed indefinitely.

The speaker should have suggested to the chairman, the modification of his report. He might have said, instead of an amendment, "I am directed to report the first and only section negatived,”—and then the question, to be proposed by the speaker, would be, "Will the house concur in the report of the committee of the whole ?" which, if concurred in, he would say, "The bill is rejected or negatived." By the way, to strike out, is an amendment, and perhaps the report was not so very irregular. It was a bill in blank. It still had its title, for the title can never be touched in committee of the whole. It might be filled in various ways. The house, if it should have refused to concur, would have reinstated the section. It was so much amended, that all its offensive features, in the eyes of a majority, had been stricken out. The proper report would have been, "the first and only section negatived," whether that was an amendment or not, was an immaterial point.

December 27, 1814.

The bill to incorporate the Bank of the United States of America was under consideration.

A motion was made by Mr. Hale to amend the same: on which, the previous question was called for, and demanded by a majority: whereupon, It was taken, to wit: "Shall the main question be now put?"

And passed in the affirmative, yeas 72, nays 70.

A motion was then made that the said bill be ordered to lie on the table.

The speaker decided that this motion was not in order, as the previous question had been demanded, taken, and decided in the affirmative.

From this decision of the speaker, Mr. Gaston appealed to the house.

And on the question, "Is the speaker's decision correct?"

It passed in the affirmative yeas 108, nays 36. An inquiry was then made as to what question was before the house.

The speaker decided, that the question for the decision of the house was the main question, to wit: "Shall the amendments be engrossed, and the bill read the third time?"

From this decision of the speaker, Mr. Gaston again appealed, contending that the question was on the motion of Mr. Haile to amend.

The speaker's decision was again affirmed by the house: yeas 91, nays 52.

December 29, 1814.

The same bill under consideration.

After many propositions to amend, the previous question was called for, and demanded by a majority; upon which it was taken, and decided in the affirmative.

The main question was then taken, that the amendments to the bill be engrossed, and the bill read the third time,

And passed in the affirmative.

The said amendments being engrossed, the clerk was about to proceed to read the said bill the third time: when,

An inquiry was made by Mr. Bigelow, whether this bill had precedence of the other orders of the day; and whether it was not necessary to dispose of the said orders of the day previous to the reading of this bill?

The speaker decided that it was not necessary to dispose of the other orders of the day; that the bill, being an engrossed bill, had precedence of any other order of the day.

From this decision Mr. Bigelow appealed to the house; When,

The speaker's decision was affirmed.

Fourteenth Congress, 2d session, 1816.

A bill was under consideration, and a motion was made to amend the same, when a member called for the reading of the bill: which being objected to, the speaker declared that at that stage of its progress it was not competent for one member to demand the reading of the bill without the order of the house. Mr. Basset appealed. The speaker's decision was affirmed.

Twelfth Congress, 1st session. Vol. 8, p. 193.

An engrossed bill was read the third time, and the question was stated "that the bill do pass;" a debate arising thereon, the previous question was called for and decided in the negative, in consequence of which the speaker (Clay,) declared that the bill was postponed until the next day. Acquiesced in by the house.