The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-04-28

4 In. III
public measure on question OF order, and not its
merits YET sir while do not consider thai pIecedenis
always binding, but are to be followed or disregard
cd according their reasosabeness beg 10 call the at
ieniion OF The Senate and particularly OF the senator from
Texas, Mr. RUsKl 10 the action OF the Senate upon this
very subject last year, when, upon question OF order
amendment max ing an increased allowance for this very
steam line ruled out OF order by decision ot the
Chair. which decision, upon an appeal being taken
from it, was sustained by the Senate. On the ID OIL
March Of last year-the last day OF the sessionthe
journal of the Senate bears the following record;
"on motion by Mr.. PgARcE, to amend the bill by insert
$50 -. Had BE- a further enacted, That the Secretary
OF the Navy be suthorized to t. X Collins and his as
New York and Liverpool the of 100000 per
ProDiaed. That the increase OF compensation hereby
allowed may any time DO discontinued by authority OF
"a question being raised by Mr. SouLE, whether the
proposed amendment in order,
The PREsIDEsr fsnPoe decided that the proposed
amendment was not Ia ORDER
After some other action OF the Senate had been taken
motion again by Mr. PEARcE, TO amend the bill in the
same manner.
"The President pro snipore decided that the proposed
amendment was not in order.
From this decision an appeal was taken and on the
question: Is the decision Of the Chair eorrectP de-
cided In the Acknowledgements 70. nays2i
Then the yeas and nays ordered on the motion of
the senator from Illinois. Mr. SuIELDs and they stand
| on the record.
In the Congressional Globe OF that date we find. from
the debate the subject, that when the senator from
Maryland MIR PEARcEl proposed the amendment, Mr..
raised the question OF ORDER and the amendment was
ruled OF order Then, after some intervening bust
ness, Mr. PEARcE renewed the offer OF his amendment,
when the following took place.
| "Mr HUNTER | rise TO question of order This
amendment was decided by the Senate to be out Of order
The PRESIDENT It's the same question which was
decided by Senate, in committee to be out OF order,
and the Chair cannot entertain IL
| When the question was first raised Mr.. SoULE asked,
+" Has there been an estimate for this!" Mr. PEARcE
replied
There have been letters received from the Secretary
the Navy. do know whether the Senate viii consider
But il is letter in which he states:
'Unders,anding from Collins, esq, that the Com
5000 00o per annum, havs the honor that
such De the determination OF Congsss there will be need
Here in this letter, in inquiry to what
amount would be required if Congress agreed TO give
Mr. Collins the additional compensation, the Secretary
OF the Navy estimated 100000 II is precisely such
case now have before Then, when ii was
proposed to give Mr. Collins the increased compensation,
the Secretary OF the Navy was inquired of and answered.
If you propose give the increased the estl-
mate is $500 900 in addition Now, when is proposed
again to increase the compensation for the same ne the
Secretary OF the Navy inquired OF to the
sary amounts and he give the increase will
cost much in addition. That is the before the
Senate Upon The question formerly presented, the Pres
dent OF the Senate decided the proposed amendment to
be out OF order and upon appeal his decision was
sustained by the Senate.
Mr. President desire to be consistent, as nearly
do not wish, humble am, to be considered as
taking position which has not reason for it.
beg leave therefore, to read very short paragraph from
the debate at the last session. in which gave my views
before voting TO sustain the descsion OF the Chair. said
"Idese to state why consider the decision of the Chair
correct Under the rule, understand that amendment
general appropriation bill requiring appropriation Of
money, can be made, unless Is accompanied by an es
mate furnished by apartment, unless it is amend
which provides for the execution of provision of
pre- existing law Under no circumstances can an amend
ment be made providing for private claim Now, think
upon all three OF these points thus amendment Is clearly ex
an estimate from department Secondly IS not Ia com
piance with xlsting law and IN the third place. nc
ons understands y TO DO anything but private claims
gratuiy TO an individual"
The last point then made shall not insist upon now
| The others do.
The senator from Texas refers to the terms of the rule
and says that the amendmen, is conformity with It,
seems TO me that be does not look TO the requirement
q pursuance OF estimate" &C. Now, apprehend, tina
in this instance, instead OF the amendment being in "pur
suance OF estimate" the reverse is true, and the
called estimate has been made in pursuance OF the amend
ment The estimate has been furnished new, il wa,
done last year, when similar proposition made
There did not then come here, IN the regular and eg
mate order oil proceeding, recommendation or esmai,
from the head OF a department., as OF public measure
but the proposition made at the instance OF the ind
ydua who was 10 be the beneficiary OF the appropriation
Then the estimate was sought and was made, IN pursu
ance OF preexsting purpose OF making the amendment
and not the amendment made in pursuance OF the estimate
the rule requires But, whether the rule be right IL
itself, whether the action OF the Senate last year wa
right under the rule not, in the view OF my honorable
friend from North Carolina, Mr. BADGER land favor
lite view seems 10 De win hlmby tue precedent oil I'M
Senaes decided action, IN similar case, and for III,
sake OF consistency the position have taken IS fully
aned and the proposed amendment is excluded by th
rule.
Mr.. DOUGLAS. My first impression was very cea
that this amendment out OF orders but If the fact
be az stated by the senator from North Carolina, tMr
BADoER, do not see how II can be held 10 be so
understand him make this statement OF the facts tina
during the OF Congress- the department entered into
arrangement with this company for extra mail service
and that the annual report TO Congress, the head
the department stated the fact and recommended Con
gress provide by law for carrying the arrangement int
effect Here, then, distinct recommendation for exlrs
service and for such Legislation necessary 10 carr,
the arrangement Tor that extra service into effect nclu
Ding OF course the necessary money 10 be appropriated
for that purpose But there vagueness the
ommendaton on one pent, and that was The omission
to the specific amount oil money which the depart
ment needed 10 carry out the recommendation The com
mttee write 10 The department TO know how much is
quired 10 carry out the arrangement which bad been
tered nto and which they propose by this b and the de-
paumen answers that II requires much money II the
two facts taken togeher-hfst the arrangement and
ondly the estimate OF the amount IL is to cosdo moi
lom distinct recommendation am unable to compre
bend the meaning OF such communication TO Congress
The SPECIFIC arrangement being fret made the distinct
recommendation oil II 10 Congress, and the estimate OF the
smoant subsequently sent in, make clear and as dis
tnct recommendation and estimate 10 in the powe
OF department 10 make under that state oil the facts
Although was al first OF the impression that the amend
ment out OF order, and " had been called upon "a
vote should have voted, OF the opinion thai
il is based upon estimate, and is therefore in order
Mr.. BADGER There is one slight Misrepresentation into
which the senator from Illinois has fallen; and that s this
the iaton OF the department at the beginning
the session was that Congress should atfy this
Tor increased service "wiih such increase OF oompen.