New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-03-25


time on the morning of the 4th of March,
when the business of the Session ough. to
have been concluded on the Sd. .. When
taken up, Mr.. Hale asked for a single read
ing, which was strenuously objected to, but
las any one Senator may have bill read
under such circumstances) he insisted and
carried his point. 3. That this bill in
volved the expenditure of some Ten Mil
lions of Dollars. 4. That among its pro-
visions as it came from the House was one
inserted there as an amendment affecting
the alleged contract for a San Francisco
Dry Dock, which the Senate deliberately
struck ont by very large vote as involving
a violation of the public faith. 5. That
this proviso, thus emphatically rejected and
never in any manner agreed to by the Sen
ate, does nevertheless appear in the bill as
presented to the President, signed by him.
and since published as law of the land.
6. That it was written into the engrossed
bill by Speaker Cobb Of the House.
Such is substantially our statement;
and it will be seen that Judge Young's os-
tentatious contradiction of "this foul cal
umny" confirms erery portion Of our state
ment whicb is essential to our purpose. The
Senate did strike out this proviso; the bill
as returned to the House showed this fact
the Senate never in any manner agreed to
any such proviso; yet here it is duly
signed, recorded and published as part of
the law of the land Is not this a most
startling fact? This proviso was declared
in debate by leading Senators to involve a
violation of the public faith-was strenu-
ously opposed and emphatically stricken
from the bill on that ground-was never
passed at all-yet here it is embodied in
the law as officially enrolled and pub
lished What do the People think of this
state of facts? And what odds does it
make, so far as effects our argument,
whether the Interpolation into a law of
what is no law was affected by Speaker
Cobb or somebody else
But we were misinformed as to the
precise agency of Speaker Cobb in this
business. We did not of course see how
the Job was eflected-we only witnessed
what took place in the Senate, and for the
residue were obliged to re- " on the intor-
nation given us by others.-The following
statement Just handed Us by a gentleman
of high character who was personally cog
infant of the facts will show what founda-
ton there was for the statement respecting
Speaker Cobb as made to and published
by us:
HORACE GREELEY, EsQ.-My Dear Sir: Being
present and cognizant of all that was passing in
the House and Senate in relation TO the building
of q Floating Dock at California, conceive 1t
duty not only due to Speaker Cobb. but to your
self that true statement OF the facts, so lar as
concerns Mr.. C.'s conduct, should be made known,
and ] shall proceed to relate what transplred IN
my presence.
One Of the Clerks Of the Senate called at my
room after the adjournment Of Congress, and to
nv great surprise informed me that the amend
ment made by the Senate striking out the proviso
for advertising had not been submitted to the
House. and that the Clerk of the House refused
TO enroll the Navy Bill leaving out this proyiso,
except he was directed so to do by the Speaker.
Conceivng it q matter OF much moment lmme-
distely went in search OF the Speaker, and Wnlle
calling his attention 10 the fact that he possessed
no mower to give direction on this subject, Mr.
Buck. one of the House joined Us with the Navy
bill in his hand. He explained the difficulty
MIR Cobb rephed-all the advice he could give
was that the bill must conform to the action OF
the House-that, inasmuch as the amendment OF
the Senate was not submitted, 1t could not DC
omitted in the bill. He regretted that he had
permitted himself to sign the bill IN blank before
II was thoroughly enrolled, and excused himself
ON the ground that had he not done so the bill
would have been lost. The strong point IN this
cnse is this that neither the Clerk OF the House
nor the Speaker bad power to insert one word IN
the bill after it was signed.
The name of the writer Of the fore
going will be cheerfully given to any one
entitled to call for it, but we presume his
statement will not be gsinsayed. He IS an
ardent personal as we'll as political friend
of Speaker Cobb, and has no idea of cast
ing censure upon him. We leave the mat
ter where he has placed it, observing only
that no controversy respecting the nature
of the clause in question or the agency by
which its Interpolation into a law of the
land was effected can possibly affect the
truth that q great and perilous public wrong
u
has been somehow effected; AID this Is
what our article of the 9th was intended to
show. Does any one deny it ! No matter
who was the immediate occasion OF this
wrong, the ultimate authors were those
Members of Congress who first deliberate
lu wasted twn-thirds Of the Session in sit