New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-03-29

tho Post Route bill contained nh nppfo-
pfiation Of $4,000 for that Company
which We knew was unknown 10 and un-
suspected by tho Senate when il passed
The bill. On statement was true, save
with regard to the name of our informant
though he was mistaken. The appropria-
ton in question was not in the bill; We did
not assert as of our own knowledge that 1t
tcas bus-only that we were so informed,
which was true. And the point material
TO our argument was this--that large
'mqjority Of those tchO passed the bill md
not and could not knoto 'ohether II Uas there
or not. 1t was Legislation by Guess
and not positive error, that we were striv-
ing to expose and correct. Yet the Argus
and fifty like it, have grossly misststed
our allegation while shuddering at our
reckless inaccuracy =
And now as to the other point: We
stated exactly how the Naval Appropria-
ton bill came up in and went through the
Senate.-how its reading at all was strenu-
ously opposed-how proviso in it which
the Senators regarded and discussed as of
great importance was pronounced repu-
diation of the National Faith and thereupon
stricken out by large majority-we should
say, at least three or four to one-dnd get
that Prouiso, so stricken out, and nerer re-
inserted, appears IN and is officially pub
Hshcd as part Of the Act from rohich The
Senate emphatically expunged IT, Are not
these facts which ought to startle the
Country! What security is there for
Right, or Law, or anything, when official
Acts Of Cor gress can be fabricated in this
way?
This Act, of course, had not been prin-
ted when we left Washington. We did
not know what was in it or not in it, any
more than Congress did-did not know nor
guess that the Proviso which we saw
stricken out of the bill had nevertheless
been foisted into the Act-till on our way
home we met in the cars friend interested
in Docks and asked him some questions on
the subject. He told us that the Pro-
viso we had ssen stricken out was never
theless put into the Act as enrolled
and signed (which was true as start
Iing) and that Mr.. Speaker Cobb had
aoritten IL IN chen he signed the bill. Pre-
Stunning that he knew the fact, we stated it
in our article; but it proves that our in
formant was IN terms mistaken. Mr.. Cobb
did not with bis own hand write this re-
jected clause into the Act of Congress-he
merely directed that 1t should go in. The
statement we printed on Tuesday from g.
gentleman who applied to Mr.. Cobb on the
subject, showing him that this Proviso had
not passed the Senate and so was no part OF
the law. shows that the Speaker replied
that "All the advice he could give was
that The bill must con- form 10 the action q The
House-that, inasmuch as the amendment
of the Senate was not submitted TO the
House Unjust not be omitted IN the biH'-
that is to say that which Congress never
did ensct-which one branch of it pointed
ly refused to enact-must nevertheless be
enrolled and published as the law of the
lend Is there any essential difference be-
tween the Speakers so directing the Clerk
and mis- writing in the clause with his own
band? Shall the blunder of some Senate
Clerk in the hurry of a sitting which has
lasted twenty-six hours be held by the
Speaker of the House to make law for the
Union
But bear in mind that our concern is
not with Speaker Cobb, bat with 'Legisla-
ton by Guess Only state fairly what he
did, and say he was right if you can; but
do let the public know something of Lee
gislation by Guess