Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1842-05-31

| would be in ofcer 10 amend Tie ihoto" W moving
Their number az ratio
Mr.. KING remarked that many gentlemen were
,repared 10 vote for striking out the ratio IN the BILL
who were not prepared to vote Tor me number pro-
nssd s substitute He therefore called for division
nf the question: 10 have The vote on striking out
MIR. WOODBURY. was opposed to striking out for
the purpose of inserting that specific number.
MIR BAYARD SAID, as IL seemed to be desirable, he
would move merely to strike out the ratio fixed by the
aouse and leave the question of inserting for an indie
pendent motion.
sent rato, without he knew what number was intended
10 be substituted the ratio lie preferred compound
motion of striking out and inserting
MIR BAYARD belle we'd that it was the general sense
amos, of the Senate, not to adopt the ratio fixed by
the House; and it was with that view, lie moved TO
strike out If it be stricken out, then the question Of
what will be the right ratio VIII ar'se and IN order to
dsembarass that question, he was willing to modify
his motion TO one of striking out merely; which mo-
lion if il prevailed he would follow up by motion 10
insert "a COZ the ratio.
| AIR WRIGHT, understanding that The motion
was one fer simply striking Out the ratio OF 3D. fixed
| by the House, demanded Tue yeas aho nays, winch
were ordered
| Mr. MERRlCK said he would vote against the mo-
ton to strike out, not because he was in favor of the
ratio fixed by the House, but because the motion
perfect pr0pOSltiOU NotIS
10 strike out lie would not know what he was voting in
| lis stead.
Mr. WRIGHT said, as he had called for the yeas
and nays on The motion, 1t was proper that he should
state his reasons for doing He called for them, be
cause he was favor OF retaining The ratio liked By
the House of Representatives..
MIR. WOODBURY. gave some reasons, (Which were
not distinctly heard) why he would not vote for
striking out the RATIO
The question was then put on Mr. Bayard's motion,
n "A H.,
and carried in the Affirmative yeas and nays, as
tollows-Yeas %, nays %:
y,asAIess Archer Bacby, Bayard Berrien, Buchanan Cal
"n NJ orls Manenm Preston Rive. SEWER Sm,
diana sturgeon, Tallmadse WHITE Williams, and Woodbridge
NrrsNr>>rs. Allen, Barrow Bates Benton choatc Conrad
Criicnicn, henderson, Huntington kerS Meck Miller More
err Wilcox, Woodbury., Wright. and ionng-aa
On notion Of Mr. BUCHANAN, the Senate then
adjourned
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE
Mr.. MERIWETHER, from the Committee on Pub.
lie Expenditures, made additional report in rela
ton to the expenditures, for the improvement Of The
navigation at the mouth of the river Mississippi par
icularly in relation 10 the conduct and accounts OF
Captain Tacoti, superintendent oil that work.
Mr NJ from the same committee, 10 which was re.
ferred memorial from citizens OF the State Of Ohio
praying reduction of the salaries, compensation OF
all officers of The Government, made detailed report
in relation to the expenditures of the Government
civil military and naval and recommending retrench
ment and reform in various branches and bureaus Of the
public service.
He also re ported the following bills:
bill to reduce the pay of the officers of the Federal
Government
bill for the better regulation of the navy; TO repeal
the &C, of March Sd, 1887, providing for the equal
distribution Of the navy pension fund; and to reduce
the navy to peace establishment.
A bill TO reduce the military establishment OF the U
S, and for other purposes
bill regulating The payment of expenses accr uing
in the collection Of duties on imports.
These bills were respectively read twice, and were
committed to the Committee Of the Whole.
\ Mr. FILLMORE moved that the House resolve it.
self into Committee Of the Whole on the Army bill
MIR. Mckay addressed the committee at some length
in support of The amendment; and in the course OF bis
remarks, offered amendment by way of provlso to
the item which provided for more gradual reduction
of the army than that provided for in the cndmen
previously before the House. Ii provided that the
cruiting service should cease until the army was re
duced by deaths, designations, discharges and deser
tons, TO about 5000 men.
Mr. c. JOHNSON accepted it in lieu Of his own
Mr. FILLMORE objected that the amendment wa:
out of ORDER and called the attention Of the Chair 10 the
sd rule, which provides that no proposition, different
from the one under considerations shall be introduced
under color of amendment the proposition before the
House was to pay army created b. existing laws
while the substance of the amendment was, that there
shall be reduction OF that army from 10000 to 5000
men, and the disbanding of one regiment. Now, wal
this amendment the subject which they were legs
la,nc, He knew that tie House possessed the physica
and moral power TO refuse the appropriation; but thu
amendment clearly out of order under the rule b:
he had referred to- The very object of that rule
avoid the confusion that must ARISE in considering ap
preparation bills, from going back into the consideration
Of the propriey OF the original law.
Mr.. MCKAY contended that the amendment did moi
repeal the law Of 1886, any other law; il only direct
ed the application Of the money appropriated. Fur
ther the law creating the regiment of Dragons, auho
rzed the President 10 dispense with It when, IN his
opinion, it would be proper TO do So The doctrine o
:. the gentleman from New York amounted to this:
we had an army as high $4,000, and the House want
ed to reduce il to peace Standard 1t could not refuse
the appropriation because it authorized by an
isng statute, Notwithstanding there an express
provision of the Constitution that appropriations
shall be made for an army for longer period than two
years.
Mr. FILLMORE snid that he had already stated
that was the power of the House to refuse the ap
preparation for the whole army-there was M
doubt of that What he con,ended for was that the
amendment conflcted with one of the rules of The
House, and was, therefore, out of order.
The CHAIR said the rule TO which his attention hut
been called, provided that proposition, different IRON
the one under consideration, should be introduced IN
der color of amendments. What the subject IN
der consideration 1t was the appropriation OF money
for the pay Of the army. What army The army
authorized by existing laws. Who are they Those
now in the service. Then what was the amendment
1t was to limit the number in service, by providing ha
no more shall he recruited in place of those who have
gone shall hereafter GO out of service, at the exp
ration of the period of their enlistment. AS TO The
latter part Of the amendment relating to the regimen
Of Dragons, The amendment did not repeal the Ia"
creating il, but provided that after certain tme nj
money shall be paid for them. In this point of view
and under the best lights he had from the preceden
heretofore set he pronounced the amendment not to bt
out Of order, and not conflicting with the rule to which
his attention had been directed.
Mr.. CUSHING appealed from that decision. II the
amendment did not repeal existing laws, it did not &C
complish the object of the mover. He asked gentle
men, in ali canIor if that amendment looked 10 TIM
snpeaed to OF The lite whether
did not, certain extent, repeal the law Of 1888.
A debate took place, in which Nlessrs. Cave John
son. Gimer, Fillmore, Holmes, Adams, and Lewis
participated, when the question taken by tellers