The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-05-23

IL 10 an impeachment tnoWn IN the way OF business lnat
may preventive bill passing within the time that II is called
for As regards the opinion which has been supposed TO
exist heretofore in the Senate control in the
vote that shall give thiak the Chair, on all these
questions, ought 20 have his independent opinion
Mr.. MASON. The honorable senator from South
Carolina stands IN the relation OF law adviser TO the Sen
ate, being chairman OF the Committee the Jud cary.
should be very much disposed TO be governed my vote
by his opinion on such matters have taken the
view OF this question with The senator from Michigan
do not entertain doubt that this Is private claim. That
is my individual opinion, But put this question to the
honorable senator from South Carolna-whether the
struction placed upon law by tribunal competent to
place such construction does not become part OF
the law itself Now, il the Senate have determined that
claims oil the class to which this belongs not private
vate claims. and OF they do not within the
rule. That is the consideration which governs my vote.
Mr.. BUTLER. u the Judgment of the Senate has
been given upon similar question: oil course we ought
10 be controlled by that Judgment do not know how
far this is distinguishabe from the question which has
been heretofore decided by the Senate. and therefore
cannot my friend. have not had the benefit of
the discussion that subject. SO far regards this
question. have no difficulty as to my judgment How
far it should be controlled by the decision OF the Senate
on another question, am not prepared to decides Tor
have been absent from the city, and have not heard the
discussion and decision.
MIR CHASE have only single suggestion to make
TO my honorable friend from Michigan and that is,
whether the devotion which he now ayows to single
precedent of the Senate quite consistent with the great
law OF progress lLaughier]
Mr.. CASS. take it that this is not precedent at all
1t is the established rule Of the Senate, affirmed by
III IL
low little progress, the point OF the senator might be
web taken but in the progress OF day have not much
MIR. BELL / wish to call the attention of the honor.
able senator from South Carolina TO the exercise OF his
acumen in seeing whether am right or wrong in what
appears TO me to be the fair construction OF this rule
The rule provides:
"No amendment proposing additional appropriations
shall be received to any general appropriation bill unless
be made 10 % n ne o bs M
during that session, moved by direction Of standing
Of the Senate, in pursuance OF an estimate
from the head Of some of the departments"
| An amendment proposing additional appropriations is
in no case admissible unless in OF these excepted
cases Then the rule proceeds and this is the point to
which wish to call the attention OF the honorable sem
aor
"And no amendment shall be received whose object is
provide for private claim although the same may have
been previously sanctioned by the Senate
think this restriction clearly shows that if such
amendment be moved by direction OF standing commit
tee il is not excluded. leave II 10 the honorable sena-
tor from South Carolina say whether there is any such
limitation There in the first clause OF the rule three
or four of exception. The second part provides
that no private claim shall be received as an amendment
although may have been previously sanctioned by the
Senate That is only OF the exceptions in the hrst
clause OF the rule II seems TO me- them that private
claim can be moved as an amendment by direction OF
standing committee or in pursuance oil an esumate.
think the restriction only applies TO cases where such
claim has been previously sanctioned py the SENATE
The rule does not preclude pssae o o Of an
estimate by the head OF one oil the departments
The PRESIDENT. The rule excludes private claims
| Mr.. BUTLER. / cannot agree with my friend from
Tennessee in the construction which be has given TO the
rule He appeals TO me with regard to IT. and have my
own opinion in regard to the matter. understand him
to go far TO say that any amendment may be offered
provided has received the sanction OF standing com.
mee, and that any private claim can be incorporated
into this BILL provided il has the sanction OF previous
estimate, or moved under the instruction OF stand
ing committee | cannot 90 that lar think the Chair
in this respect is certainly right The latter clause
perfect exclusion OF all private claims from bills OF this
kind II excludes them in all cases where they have not
passed into a law La that view, think the Chair is
correct.
i Mr. BADGER Mr. President, il word were neces-
sary show that my friend from Tennessee has fallen
into an entire mistake IN his interpretation think VIII
be evident from this fact According to his interpretation
if gentleman introduces bill for paying private
claim, and the Senate, after due consideration. unan
mousy pass that bill, and il goes down TO the other
house. The senator admits that if appropriation bill
comes up, you could not move that provision as an
amendment TO il but il bill is reported by standing
committee. il member OF standing committee is dl-
reced to amendment for the purpose OF paying
the claim then he says the subject Is IN order TO be con
sidered by the Senate Now, tina, cannot be Just rule
OF Interpretation which makes the direction oil standing
committee superior 10 The decision OF the Senate.
The meaning of that exclusion to which the senator
has referred was show that private claim should not
be novel as amendment under any circumstances
and for the purpose OF showing that II could not be
moved under any circumstances, the highest and most
consequential and influential circumstance was specified
TO wit when the private claim had received the pre-
yious sanction OF the Senate.
| would not have venured 10 make these suggestions
but for the fact that the Chair has submitted this ques
ton for the opinion OF the Senate and hence II 10
be proper that we should, all OF us, eraim say what
we think OF il.
i In word, am clearly OF opinion that il the Senate
has passed private claim since have been mem
Der Of the body, this is private claim. u the Senate
has passed bill providing for private claim, then
admit thus is not private claim.
do not exactly agree in the reasoning of my friend
from Virginia. IMr MAsos] that because the Senate, as
he supposes, certain instance, voted claim 10 be a
public claim which really private one, we are
therefore TO repeal that rule for that is his argument
cordng 10 it correct misapplicaton OF a
rule But do not hold with the senator that the Sem
ate has decided that any claim parallel with this IS pub
lie claim The distinction between the which has
been referred to by my honorable friendhe amendment
moved by the senator from Tennessee and largely de-
ba,ed here-and the now under consideration, IS OBJ
vous. This claim is private in all its parts and, as
have said If il is not private claim then we have never
passed one.
am for repeating that part OF the rule relating to pri-
va,e claims and have given notice that shall offer
resolution for that purpose But do not wish II to be
understood that going TO repeal by vote that Il IS
not in force wish to have II repealed by the regular
action OF the Senate
Mr. HALE The senator frem North Carolina sug-
gesis that il duty seriati TO enter into dsquisi.
ton upon the rules, and TO give opinions My opn-
ion that would better adjourn, and therefore make
that motion.
Mr. HUNTER will suggest that the senator let the
question be taken and dispose OF this.
II Mr. HALE Well, sir, withdraw the motion.
i The PRESIDENT. The Chair will put the question
in this form Senators who consider that the amendment
can properly be offered under the rule will say save -
those who think that being private claim, IL cannot be