The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1849-02-21

the senator from Vermont II was suggested by the hon
orable senator from Massachusetts, Mr.. WEBsrER that
there have been great many decisions in this Senate
mold in my hand which wish TO refer to, and |
think IT will elucldate the doctrine OF parliamentary law
laid down by the distinguished President OF this body.
and sustained byi II rs IN the journal of the Senate OF
April 81 1915 senator called to order for chag
another with introducing into the Senate Tor
his amusement Ii was decided that that was in
ORDER and that a member charging another with intro
lucing into this body for his own amusement
was not out OF order. Now, SIR suppose that II the
senator from Tennessee Mr.. BELLl has introduced this
INTO the body Tor no purpose more censu,aole thah 10
aInuse himself, II will be german to the bill
But there is question important before us
than that and il is, whether it is in the power of
member, after having raised question OF order, from
the decision of which an appeal has been taken 10
withdraw it without leave of the body My question is
not whether The member who makes thai appeal may
Withdraw IT, but whether the member who made the
objection in the first instance has right, after an APP
peal taken to withdraw his point of order, and take
the appeal with it! That is the question, sir and con-
slider it a very important question. IL may have very
important bearing upon the privileges of this body,
debera've assembly because the power which regard
existing in the body would be all in yonr hands, sir in
conjunction with any member who chose, in such state
of the case, Withdraw his objection, and take the APP
peal with it, | hope the opinion OF the Senate Will be
taken upon that question.
Mr.. BUTLER. | hope the Question of orler--[What
followed was entirely inaudibe to the reporters.
Mr. KING cannot hear the senator: there are too
many talking at once
find this extreme concern at the introduction OF this
proposition; but | will say nothing further upon that
subject | trust that before have done shall have
satisfied gentlemen of the sngeness OF purpose with
which have brought forward this amendment
stated before, sir, that not inclined to insist
upon the proposition the present shape. Ii it shall
be dsagreeable to the Senate as it's prepared TO
modify and change according to the sense OF the Senate
keeping the substantive object of this proposition s N
view. Now sir do not often interfere, as have stated al.
ready in the business of this body OF any description and
still less do interfere with the proceedings and rules OF
order But sir have read the rules OF the Senate and
have had some little experience IN parliamentary law ap-
pcabe these rules in other bodies well as IN this,
and | am far old and experienced parliament
tartan to have brought forward an amendment OF this
description, knowing the fate OF the bill OF the honorable
senator from Illinois Mr.. DoUGLAs]-l say am too
old and experienced in my business have brought
mentary law OF Congress and Of the Senate upon mere
questions of order The President Of the Senate, upon
motion made by the senator from New Hampshire Mr.
HAIEl has already decided that the proposition OF the
senator from Wisconsin [Mr. WALKERl in order.
There was appeal from that no ncongrulty IN that
proposition with the body of this bill .subsantated
That not matter foreign to the general Objects OF
the bill and there thought Of taking objection
upon the ground of inconsistency incongruity But
the first time the proposition is made 10 amend that winch
does satisfy the views expectations OF senators.
honorable members have raised the question O order,
consistency, and congruity
But, MIR President, what would be ncongruous 10 the
bill now under consideration? Why, sir, you might de-
nominate it bill for the purpose OF raising the salaries,
or increasing the salaries OF OF the officers OF the
new wing an additional building for the Patent Office;
is bill authorizing the government 10 dispense medals
to the Indian tribes and for how many other purposes
il is unnecessary for to say; to 10 so, should have
to review the BILL merely mention these features be-
cause they first to my mind Sir this bill is not
unit with regard to its object from beginning to end
You have made about of appropriations IN con-
fomity with the existing law OF the land this bill and
the amendments that have been made TO it, Pray to what
part of this bill! shall this amendment be said to be in
congruous? The Senate has incorporated into this Dill
everywhere appropriations for objects The amend
ment of the senator from Wisconsin Is IN relation
to these Territories. That is decided 10 be in order
and is my amendment ncongruous to that? II has
the same object And | propose TO let that amend
ment if adopted by the Senate, such portion Of it
as may be adopted, stand incorporated IN the bill The
question is to be tested to IT'D congruity with the
bill And when you come to examine the body OF the
BILL DEFY senators to say what II 49, except that is
bill for the appropriation of money according to the ex-
sling law of the land But this question OF concordance
cannot be drawn into the vortex of the rules OF order
This is the doctrine laid down in the manual by Mr. JET
erson The amendment may be amended SO as totally to
alter the proposition and 1t is mode that is sometimes
adopted, of getting rid OF proposition, 70 move such
amendment that the mover OF the original proposition
the amendment prevail cannot vote for his own propo-
siton thus amended Yes sir, it Is mode that rs often
resored to of getting rid of propositions that can only
be got rid Of in that way. A new bill may be engrated
upon the words be it enacted p all the rest of the
original bill having been stricken out Now, in
relation TO myself, / have stated already that felt
greatly embarrassed in offering this proposition. II is
out OF its usual course. ! acknowledge It is out OF
the strictly proper to append to this bill items OF
appropriation which not authorized by laws already
in exstence but the practice of the Senate has not been
confined to the rgid observance OF such rule; indeed
there rule of the Senate making such appropriations
out of order When considered the period OF the SEES
sion at which had arrived and the Indications which
saw around me- saw, or thought saw that this would
be the only opportunity for obtaining the action OF the
Senate upon the subject of this amendment and there
fore proposed TO incorporate it in this bill had no de-
sign even if it were the will of majority of this body TO
do so make the civil and diplomatic bill stand or fall IN
the House of Representatives by their concurrence or non
in tho me nj L
have proposed in this place from the necessity OF the case
Judging from what going on IN the Senate nave
come 10 the conclusion that order to have acted upon
at all it was necessary il amendment to this
bill To excuse myself have already said that with regard
to the precise form of the amendment having the sub
stance in view ready to modify it, and If 1t should
not be made after all agreeable to the Senate it will be
in their discretion to vote it down, when the vote shall
have been arrived at and they may place that vote upou
what ground they please that they are IN favor OF the
measure but that they will not incorporate IT IN the civil
and diplomatic appropriation bill in order to coerce the
House Senators may place their votes where they
please they are embarrassed in regard to It, tor 1t
will be perfectly parliamentary for them to do
make these observations partly in reply to the honor
able senator from South Carolina, who cOmpaIns--and
the other senator from South Carolina also complains
that notice has not been given of the intention to
such amendment this, especially in regard to mat
ter of much importance, in an appropriation bill Sir,
has not the proposition been pending Tor two months
substantially in the Senate! Notice oil ut given
Has it not been before the Judiciary Committee and be-
fore select committee of this body' Yet senators come
forward and complain of SURPRISE and say that this Is
strange method of introducing it, Sir, word IN refer
the proprety of introducing here and in reply,
in advance, to the arguments of those senators who may