John Joseph Moakley: “Arguing in the alternative, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Chair for its patience, arguing the alternative, if the Chair…”

“Arguing in the alternative, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Chair for its patience, arguing the alternative, if the Chair finds some merit in our argument but is not convinced in the sufficient merit to overrule the point of order, I respectfully urge the Chair to consider to put the motion, the question, directly to the House, and there is precedent for this action. One of the issues in deciding the germaneness of censure to impeachment is the notion that the censure is not privileged, but impeachment is. On a question of privilege, however, the early practice of the House was for the House to determine whether it should be entertained. In fact, the practice was so well established that in 1842 the Speaker, Representative John White of Kentucky, remarked he could find no instance on record where the Chair had determined what constituted a question of privilege. On the contrary, he found numerous instances where the House had settled it. This occasion is described in the third volume of Hinds' Precedents, section 2654. When the Speaker was asked to rule on whether a resolution regarding charges made by a Cabinet officer about Members of Congress committed a question of privilege, he said, the Speaker speaking: For the Chair to decide in such a case would be an usurpation on its part, and what the Chair might deem a breach of privilege, the House may not deem so, and vice versa.' Again, Mr. Speaker, I remind the Chair that this is a question of first impression.…”