The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-03-10

lacked brains 10 concentrate our forces The minority
that had beaten told how they had done II; and
voes-but they had the sense and brains and brains
VIII always beat brute force. Sir, say the gentleman
would not have 10 20 home and tell that story II be
WOULD Just inuse little q the enterprise Of ms own
character into this measure and let no desire 10 be
followers instead OF leaders have the course Indicated as
10 the manner in which make our numerical force
effective call on every friend OF the measure to take
Mr. ADAMS MIR President, as have the honor 10
be member OF the Committee on Roads and Canals,
under whose direction the amendment offered, per-
maps may not be improper Tor me to make some lew
remarks ia reference 10 my own courseU proceeding.
VIII say that there has been formal meeting OF that
committee upon that subject but the sense OF the com
nltee has been obtained in manner not unusual, by
consulting the members around this chamber. ] could
not however, give my assent 10 the proposition, Tor me
reasons suggested this morning by the senator IRON Vir-
gina, MIR. HUNTER 1t intended by the trainers
OF the constitution when they established two separate
houses Tor legislation that those houses should concur 10
iheir Judgment upon every proroson before should
become law Ii upon appropriation bill, winch Is
deemed Indispensable TO the carrying on OF the govern
ment. you may Introduce general legislation, majority
OF either House, by adherng to that general egsiauon
may force upon majority OF the other HOUSE ane ac.
cepance oil a law contrary 10 lis Judgment IL senators
would reflect upon that they would see al once The evil
10 which il would lead This proposition may be harm
less in itself not going to discuss It's merits now
but if we Introduce il in violation of the spirit OF the
rule which intended 10 carry out the spirit and IN
iention of The constitutions senators can see at once what
lead 10. force Tue majority OF
branch of Congress- have remarked, 10 yield to the
necessity OF the case, and pass laws contrary to their
Judgment defeat the appropriation bills. It was Tor
this that, as member OF the committee, could
not agree 10 the amendment and this is the reason why
shall vote against il now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. BADeER) Two
that the Chair should decide The first relates TO the
amendment proposed by the senator from Ohio Wheth-
that amendment is in order not, depends upon the
construction given 10 the 30h rule will be recol-
rfadh u thn ut nFnU n ha
that rule, il was in the power OF any senator 10 move
any amendment to any appropriation bill Tor any purpose
he deemed proper and 10 have the sense OF the Senate
upon IT, BY that rule amendments proposing additional
appropriations and no other amendments, are made out
OF order unless they moved under other of the
circumstances specified in the rule. One OF those CIR
cumslances is, when they moved by direction oil a
standing committee of the Senate II seems, therefore,
TO the Presiding Officer that this amendment being moved
by direction OF standing committee OF the Senate, is
clearly within the provision OF the 30ih rule allowing
the amendment TO be made This view is strengthened
by the consideration that, the Chair has just mentioned,
previous TO the adoption of The rule any member could
move any amendment for making any appropriation.
The Senate restricted it thereafter TO amendments moved
by order OF a standing committee OF the Senate. The
rule does not require does import, that the amend
ment shall be moved IN urtherance oil some subject re-
ferred to that committee. That is obvious because al
though subject may be referred to a select committee,
and although that select committee may be prepared to
report, and may have matured BILL it could not direct
the bill to be moved If il contained appropriation as
an amendment to general appropriation bill The rule
restrictive upon the right formerly possessed by every
member OF the body. 1t is therefore to tie constantly In
epreed with reference to the previous right restricted
by it. But il II otherwise, the Chair understands
that this subject has, by reference of various memo
rals been put before the Committee Roads and Ca
nails and that committee has, by general rule OF
the Senate right TO report by bill otherwise and as
an amendment making an appropriation may be moved
general appropriation bill by direction OF that
mittee well any other standing committee the Chair
reason to doubt that the original amendment Of
fered by the senator from Ohio is in order
With regard to the amendment offered by the senator
from Wisconsin that amendment the Chair is of opin-
ion that is not in order. It's amendment proposing
additional appropriation 10 appropriation bill and
the Chair of opinion that the rule excludes such
amendment being moved except by the direction OF a
standing committee OF the Senate, cannot be moved by
without such direction, although it be offered
as an amendment TO pending amendment regularly be-
fore the body, because is obvious If that could be done,
the whole rule might be entirely evaded lnasmuch,
therefore, the amendment proposed by the senator from
Wisconsin TO the amendment offered by direction of the
the Commitiee Roads and Canals proposes addi-
tona appropriation, the Chair is OF opinion that II is
excluded by The rule II does not at all follow, because
this endmen is excluded that the Senate therefore
Obliged 10 take the amendment proposed by direction OF
the Committee Roads and Canals just it is or 10
vote il down. The Senate may, undoubtedly, that
amendment being regularly before the body, enlarge
duce, strike out the particular appropriation which II
contains Under the rule the Chair is clearly of opn
ion that the amendment TO the amendment is order
Unless, therefore, there be an appeal from that decision
the question before the Senate the amendment Of
fered by the senator from Ohio.
Mr. WALKER. In order 10 bring the question OF my
amendment before the Senate, and this may become
precedent. will take appeal from the decision OF the
Chair in relation TO the amendment offered
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senator from Wis
consin takes appeal from the decision OF the Chair
that the amendment proposed by him 10 the amendment
offered by the from Ohio, by direction of the
Committee Roads and Canals, is not in order The
question: then, will be, Shall the decision OF the Chair
stand as the judgment OF The Senate !"
Dir. HUNTER. Ii seems to me that the Chair has
reasoned well in relation to his decision, il would be
useess 10 add anything to H. concur entirely in the
opinion Of the Chair. To adop, any other construction
would be, as he has said, 10 nuiy the rule
Mr. RUSk. regret extremely that shall be compel.
ed to vote sustain the decision OF the Chair daughter
not because 1T would not afford very great pleasure
always 10 sustain the Chair especially the present
pant OF it, but because regard the amendment offered by
the senator from Wisconsin being OF great merit
should not be prepared to vote for 1t if IL in order
in its present shape but with alteration of very
few words should prepared TO vote for it, and would
re ard II as proposition OF great importance.
Mr.. HUNTER As the question is one OF Importance
| call for the yeas and nays upon it,
Mr.. WALKER The question now before i.
whether the decision of the Chair shall stand the
Judgment OF the Senate Ii would be well for the Senate
TO reflect little before they decide 10 sustain the Chair
inclined 10 think that upon little mature
alteration the Chair would not make the decision. The
decision amounts to this in its operation that when
committee has submitted amendment TO the general
appropriation II is entirely within the behes OF The
presiding officer say what shall be the character oil
the amendments which shall be proposed TO that amend
ment OF the committee. Now, by what rule shall the
Chair be governed BY what criterion can he he gov
erned IL is always parliamentary and IN order to
10 amend proposition and 1t is always in order 10
move proposition which will change entirely the chat
acier OF the original one, long the object is the
same. Now, heres one proposition made as the basis
iDcipent step, for the construction OF railroad
to the Pacific think that needs amendment, and pro-