The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-08-30
I'm CONGRESS- OF THE U. STATES.
THURSDAY, AUGUST 90. 1850.


| Alter the reading OF the journal,
| Mr. GRINNELL moved the reconsideration OF The
vote by which the House yesterday referred to the Com
nee ol the Whoeon the state of the Union the House
bill with amendments from the Senate relative 10 The
printing al the report OF the Secretary OF The Treasury on
commerce and navigation
This motion being agreed 10, ,n,,, !,
Alter few remarks IRON Mr. WENl Wohl1, he
| said amendments were concuTred IN
/ The regular order OF business being called 1of
/ The SPEAKER announced The first business IN order
TO be The question on agreeing 70 .oe ,esouon " son
/ Thomas Richie and e. r. Sengsack 10 De brought 20
The bar OF the House, to answer eacn lof eontep
Iecl committee Of the House, on which The gentleman
| from Indiana was entitled TO the floor
/ Mr.. FITCH (he gentleman referred to) addressed
the House at length IN reply to the speech OF UT
EVANS OF the previous day. 10 Mr. SrAsLYs remarks,
and in exposition OF the futiy OF the investigation ana
the folly OF continuing IT,
held the request of Mr. F. for revision and will APP
| pear Tomorrow .
Mr., EVANS obtaining the floor, said he would not
comment upon the speech OF MIR FITcH until that gentle
remarks print further than to say thai ne
was astonshed that any gentleman moi connected py
blood with Thomas Richie should defend him here.
! The language he (Mr + had used against Thomas
Richie intended to be harsh; yet ne mad sought no
personal controversy with tho gentleman from Indiana
Though what that gentleman had SAID IN explana-
lion OF his remarks he could not treat them as personal
yet repeated ne should be compelled TO treat 'hem as
such. 49,
Mr.; FITCH. dn,errupting Mr.. Ed They will be pub
Mr. HIBBARD. That will be repetition.
! Mr. FITCH Then be il so.
Mr.. EVANS (resuming the foor) said he commended
that everything he had said yesterday and before con-
corning Thomas Richie would be substantiae in The
port Of the select committee on printing Mr. FITCH
lsaid Mr. Ed had assumed thankess office in assalng
him, Mr. Ed Ii could only be to make Tor himself Mt
FTcH a powerful friend in politics he had asked M
FITcH il he had intended his remarks 10 be personal
and that gentleman dsclamed that purpose tie would
advise him in future TO keep out OF such affairs 81 ms
tMr E's > more especially when, as IN This case ms as
sailaDt hal the experience of forty years to aid hum
MI sCHENCR detailed The circumstances leading to
4 the adoption of the resolution by the COMMITTEES max ing
the report the House The committee desired to know
whether these individuals 10 be permitted to set
the authority of the committee at defiance, and whether
the House was to back OF the investigation.
MIR EVANS, OF Maryland, (nerrnpng Mr. ScHENcK)
desired 10 PROFOUND question TO Mr.. FITCH.
But, members Directing, the floor yielded to Mt r.
| for personal explanation only
MIR EVANS then rehearsed the circumstances which
had Just nspred, and again asked Mr. FITCH whether
he intended personal attack or reflection upon him
MIR FITCH replied amid so great confusion as 10 pre-
vent the answer as well as The question from being i
comprehended by the Reporter, who, however under.
stood him to say that bis remarks would be published
precisely delivered, when the gentleman could decide
on their character Tor himself.
Mr. SCHENCK (resuming) argued the legal question,
holding the House, this matter, would iail IN its
duty 10 itself not vndcae the authority OF It's COM
mitlee
I But the morning hour having expired,
On motion of Mr. MCDONALD, lwho interrupted Mr.
s. that end the House proceeded 10 the consideration
!
! The SPEAKER announced the first business IN order
to be the question upon Mr., BoYDs amendment to
the Texas boundary bill, on which that gentleman was
entitled 10 the floor
Mr. MEADE raised point of order.
j He understood 10 insist that this bill was not
properly lis third reading at this time, and that, i
not ordered by majority OF the House be committed
its place should he to TO the Speakers table, alter bulls,
sc from the Senate on their second and third reading
i Mr. NJ quoted the 9th rule OF the House proceedings
4 But the SPEAKER, after full explanation, overruled
| the point of order
Mr. THOMPSON, of Mississippi, appealed from the
decision OF the Chair. and argued 10 show that the
| point of order correct There important
Senate oil Standing precisely n the condition ito to
bill granting land TO the Mobile and Chicago rail
road The previous question had been ordered on the
the House to dispose of all bills on their first and second
reading which might be lying the Speakers table,
before proceeding consider bills the Speakers table
on their third reading.
II Mr. T. argued this point at considerable length
MIR. McLANE regarded the understanding OF the gen.
teman from Mississippi 10 be incorrect II correct there
was virtually place where bills from the Speakers Ia
Bile could 90, if the motion for their commitment failed
1t indispensable, under the 27th rule, that the bill
should up its third reading, unless motion to
commit had been made Being on its third reading The
motion to amend made by Mr. RorD, was in order
This bill did go 10 he 4th class until had been
read the third time
MIR. THOMPSON, OF Mississippi held that the bill
Il would properly 20 back on the Speakers table
Mr.. McLANE tresuming the floor again argued to
show That no motion having been MAZE 10 commit Tue
bill, IT properly on lis thlrd reading.
Mi. JONES objected TO this debate. II was entirely
out OF order.
The SPEAKER replied that the question being one OF
great importance he had INDUCED the debate 50 tar
i Mr. ASHMUN moved TO lay the appeal on the table,
in order 10 bring the House 10 the question.
Il The SPEAKER here explained his decision al con-
siderable length, arguing in us favor,
II Mr. MEADE desired 10 know whether the bill was on
its third reading,
II The SPEAKER replied that the question pending was
on agreeing 10 the amendment of MIR BoYp III that had
been offered, the question would be the third read
ing of the bill.
After further conversation between the SPEAKER
and Mr.. MEADE, and much confusion,
III The SPEAKER stated that the question upon The
appeal of Mr. Thompson. of Mississippi.
Mr.. MEADE demanded the yeas and nays; which not
being ordered on count,
II MIR. M demanded teers on ordering The yeas and
nays; which being ordered The question put, and
the yeas and nays on the appeal were refused.
The question sustaining the decision OF the Chair
being then put, it decided in the affirmative.
Mr.. MEADE claimed the right to object TO the third
reading OF the bill
MIR. BURT raised point Of order He demanded TO
move TO commit the bill before Mr.. BoYp moved TO
amend It. II he could not there existed right move
TO commit the bill
i The SPEAKER, quoting the rule, overruled the point
Of order, and explained the why he did The
rule authorized member to move to amend II he could
get the floor before motion 10 commit made.
Mr. BURT appealel from the decision Of the Chair, not,
however 10 produce delay Without designing to reflect
the Speaker, he understood say he begged the
House to understand that Speaker night know that a
member designed moving TO amend, to cut off a
motion TO commits and thus, under the ruling which the
Speaker bad made, i was plain that all the right
H. .....l sat