The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-05-28

such feelings bat honest men, seeking TO discharge
members would now come to vote and in ten DAYS the
session could be ended.
b. Of the commit
ourselves and not to have nitee ,Dcoc opinions
for II that committee reported the previous ques-
laid Against any such proceeding this protested
Mr.. Brsas (whig) Of Warrington hoped it would 60 to
the reference to the Canal COMMITTEES meant but
to Mr. West the chairman of it, and he had already
shown himself incom peent to the task nasmuch he
according the reasoning Of the gentleman from Herkme
(Mr Loomis Yesterday, the plan should be rejected
was pronounced by them deformed. They had
brought the child back to have Of its deformties
Topped of And he (Mr, b. said it was def1 med 1t
Gaughter) II he thought they could do any better
other time he would not object to their trying But he
committee Of the whole Let that course be pursued
and the business could be speedily DONE and the session
closed in less than half ten days In the of his
speech he said some of his remarks concerning the
course Of the majority might not be courteous but when
truth and Chesterfield came in conflict in his mind he
dropped Chesterfield always and told the truth.
MIR. d. B TAYLOR (dem.), of New York, wished the bill
to to the committee OF the WHOLE the purpose Of
allowing opportunity for discussion and for action
opon the Senate plan, which really the main ques
ton. The Canal Committee scheme was but proposed
substitute for that main proposition and it unjust
cut eff that plan entirely He had idea that the
Senate would ever adopt the Canal Committee plan 1t
O0u6ve0 turge0
plan the most did with that idea They expected and
hoped thereby to defeat the whole thing But he babe
them beware. The people would rise up at the pos
and take the matter into their own hands. He hoped
we should go into committee of the whole, where we
could compromise matters and to agreement
upon plan satisfactory to all.
Mr.. INGALLS,, (dem) of Warrington, could see no OBJ
ection to referring back the proposition to the Canal
justice to allow it to be referred back since the commit
tee ask It, He opposed to sending it to the commit
tee Of the whole.
Mr.. SHAW, (dem) of N T. said a. this talk was Of no
majority, would say that he and they knew this propo
sition would pass this House. II would pass bee
they had counted their force and knew it, daughter
1t would certainly pass the Assembly. but it would be
rejected in the Senate He hoped would be So too He
did not like the plan but he should vote or it, and the
Senate If they were wise, would reject it. (aughter)
And the final result would be commit of conference
and promise would be effected which would do what
the people wished. There need of longer 5eba
ting this question: therefore Let us send the bill back
for amendment, and let get at final action as
possible. he stated upon his honor there was no in
tentiOn to spring the previous question.
Mr.. LHTEJoHN said he was satisfied upon that state
ment and would withdraw his motion to send to the
committee of the whole for that reason.
Mr.. WOoD and Mr.. BURROUGHS renew wed it.
Mr.. WooD (whig) of Onondaga, took the floor but the
hour for recess arrived and the House took till
four o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr.. WOeD took the floor on the Canal bill.
Considerable debate followed, when Mr. BURROUGHS
moved to lay it on the table, Loot by 20 to rs.
motion to refer it to committee Of the whole was
lost by 48 to Sc.
Mr.. LlrTIEJoHN moved to amend the motion to refer
it to the standing committee by adding the minority
report.
Mr. WEST accepted the amendment and the resolution
amended passed.
Mr.. WEST then rose to report the BILL Objections
were made and he withdrew.
Adjourned