Chair, moved the previous question. The point of order was, that it was not in order to offer a resolution, and move the previous question, before it was read or stated from the Chair.

The Speaker stated that it was in conformity with the former decision and practice of the House to move the previous question when the resolution was moved; for the reason, that the member who offered the resolution was entitled to the floor upon it before any other could claim it; and therefore it saved time, without violating the rights of any other member to enable him to move the resolution, and call the previous question at the same instant, without going through the form of announcing the proposition, before the floor was given him to demand the previous question upon it.

An appeal was taken from this decision; and on the question, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?

It passed in the affirmative, yeas, 118; nays, 85.

THE SAME DAY.

Mr. Bell demanded that the question (Will the House now consider the resolution?) be put; and stated that he desired to debate the resolution; and he then also demanded that, under the 22d rule, which provides that" all resolutions that give rise to debate shall lie over for discussion, under the rules of the House," this resolution should lie

over.

The Speaker decided that the call for the previous question did not deprive the member of his right to demand the question of consideration on

the resolution; and that, as the question of consideration was demanded, the resolution must lie over in accordance with the decision at the last session (28th January, 1839,) on a proposition introduced by Mr. Grant, who, at the time of introducing the same, also moved the previous question; when, the question of consideration being raised, it was decided that the proposition must lie over, under the rule, and it was laid over accordingly.

From this decision Mr. Smith, of Maine, took an appeal.

And the question was put, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House? And passed in the negative, yeas, 94; nays,

114.

THE SAME DAY.

Mr. Proffit moved to reconsider the vote adopting the said resolution; and was proceeding to debate the motion to reconsider, when

Mr. Bell raised a question of order: that the question of reconsideration could not now be debated, but must lie over, under the 22d rule, which directs that all resolutions introduced on a day set apart for resolutions (this being one of those days) which shall give rise to debate, shall lie over for discussion, under the rules.

The Speaker decided, that under the 50th rule it was now in order to debate the motion to reconsider.

JUNE 5, 1840.

On motion of Mr. McKay, the rules were sus

pended for the purpose of enabling him to introduce a resolution, which he offered accordingly. (See Journal, page 1080.)

The said resolution was read.

And, after debate,

The previous question was moved by Mr. McKay, and demanded by a majority;

And then a motion was made by Mr. Andrews, that the House do reconsider the vote on suspending the rule.

Mr. Dromgoole then submitted the following question of order:

"Can a member make that motion after the previous question has been demanded, and between the demand and the putting the previous question ?"

The Speaker decided that it was in order to make the motion.

From this decision Mr. Dromgoole took an ap. peal.

And on the question, that the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House? It passed in the negative, yeas 78; nays, 85.

JULY 2, 1840.

The House resumed the consideration of the bill from the Senate (No. 299) entitled "An act to continue the corporate existence of the banks in the District of Columbia for two years, with certain restrictions."

The question recurred on the engrossment of the amendments, and the third reading of the bill; when

A motion was made by Mr. Boyd that the bill do lie on the table; when

A call of the flouse was moved.

The Chair (Mr. Briggs officiating) decided that, as the present proceedings on the bill were under the operation of the previous question, it was not in order to move a call of the House.

From this decision Mr. John Quincy Adams took an appeal.

And on the question, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House? It passed in the affirmative, yeas, 105; nays, 34. A similar decision was reversed, (see Journal, page 233.)

JULY 10, 1840.

A motion was made by Mr. Clifford to reconsider the vote of yesterday, by which the House rejected Senate resolution (No. 16) authorising the President to accept certain presents from the Imaum of Muscat and the Emperor of Morocco, and to dispose of the same.

The previous question was subsequently demanded by a majority of the members present, and was put, viz: Shall the main question be now put?

And passed in the affirmative.

The main question was then stated: That the House do reconsider the vote moved to be reconsidered by Mr. Clifford; whereupon

Mr. John Quincy Adams submitted the following resolution :

Resolved, That the Clerk of this House, by delivering, privately, a resolution from the Senate,

which had been acted upon by this House, to be returned to the Senate, to a member of this House, thereby retaining it from the Senate, has violated his official duty as Clerk of the House.

In answer to an inquiry whether this resolution was open to debate, seeing that the previous question had been ordered on the motion to reconsider,

The Chair stated that this, being a question of privilege, suspended the motion to reconsider, and was open to debate.

From this decision Mr. Turney took an appeal to the House.

And the question was put, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House? And passed in the affirmative, yeas, 86; nays,

66.

QUESTIONS OF ORDER

Decided at the Second Session of the TwentySixth Congress.

DECEMBER 23, 1840.

Mr. James offered to present a petition, the contents of which he briefly stated, and sent the same to the Speaker; who decided that the prayer thereof came within the 21st rule of the House, and that it could not be received.

Decision acquiesced in.

DECEMBER 31, 1840.

Mr. Toland offered to present a petition, the