Richmond daily times. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1853, 1851-03-28
The Union publishes the following card of the

The Union publishes the following card Of the
Clerk of the House Of Representatives:
10 the Editor Of the Union:
In view OF the very serious charge made by the
Rochester Democrat, upon the authority of the
New York Tribune, against the late Speaker of
the House OF Representatives, of having "private-
y inerpolated the navy bill by the insertion of
an amendment which was rejected by decided
majority of the Senate" the following statement
OF facts is presented to the public:
The navy bill passed the House of Representa-
tlves on the lst of March, 1851, and contained
amongst others the following provision, the latter
clause OF which, in italics, is understood to be the
one alluded to, viz
For the Heating dry-dock in California one hundred
and htty thousand dollars; and the Secretary of the
Navy Is hereby required modify the contract ell
esed TO have been made on the seventeenth of January
last, as to conne the sum to the construction of the
floating dock aone without the basin and ral ay; pro-
vlded the contractors will agree do the work at the
estimates made by the Department. November and De-
cemoer last, and provided the Secretary considers the
SAID estimates lair and reasonable; and much of said
law as authorizes the construction OF the basin and rail-
way is hereby repealed Provided, That before max
ing SAID conracte Secretary Of the Nory shall gipe
least srtu dags notice bu in lie usuol
Wdy"
The bill was then engrossed, (he foregoing
provision being upon pages and 10 of the
engrossed bil0 and on the Sd inst was sent to the
Senate. On the same day it was returned from
the Senate, with sundry amendments, which
amendments were engrossed and certified to by
the Secretary of the Senate. The said amend
ments were then severally read and agreed to by
the House. Upon reference to the amendments,
as certified to by the Secretary, there appears to
be no allusion whatever to the foregoing provision
Or even to the pages upon which it is engrossed,
1t may be proper to state that there is pencil
mark enclosing the latter "proviso, and at the
end of the item, IN pencil, "Bell to strike out
agreed" which is informally understood to indi-
cate that the Senate voted upon Mr.. Bells motion
to strike out the said proviso. In the hurry of bu-
siness, however, the action OF the Senate was
overlooked by their clerks, and the House was
never advised Of it, officially or otherwise, before
its passage, so that notice could have been taken
of it properly upon the final action of that body
This provision having been Incorporated in the orr
gnal bill by vote the House, and no official in
formation having been received of adverse action
upon it by the Senate--but on the contrary, the
Secretary having implicitly certified to their
favorable action upon it, by inadvertently omit
ting to include it among the amendments made by
the Senate--it became the duty of the enroll
ing clerk ofthe House to retain it in the bill. 1t
was consequently so retained, and enrolled as
part of the law by the clerk, and not, as is falsy
charged, privately interpolated by the Speaker"
Such is brief statement of the facts in refer
ence TO provision of the navy BILL the effect of
which, it is said is to "nullify contracts made by
the Secretary of the Navy" What shall be said
of the author of this foul caumny, who so wanton
only assails the character of a man 80 perfectly
honorable and upright in all his conduct as How
ell Cobb :? A grosser SANDER was certainly never
before perpetrated than this groundless charge
against the late Speaker.
RICHARD M. YOUNG
Clerk House of Representatives U. s.
MARCH co. 1851.