The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-05-09

motion is refused.
Mr. BADGER The senator win allow me to say that
that is not the question before the Senate There be-
ing equality OF votes the Presiding Officer declares
that the decision is affirmed from that decision take
appeal
The Presiding Officer informs that have right to
take the sense Of the Senate whether he right in his
straeson q say therefore that that would be equally
Suppose he said in such case The yeas have il could
not appeal from that decision That is the question
before the Senatewheher the of the vote
by the Presiding Officer Is conclusive.
Mr. BAYARD. have objection To the decision Of
that question BY the Senate y y
Mr.. BADGER That is the present question.
Mr.. BAYARD But 1t to me that there cannot be
shadow of doubt in regard TO the decision of the Chair
that il requires majority 70 reverse decision Of the
Mr. BADGER That may be so; but think clearly /.
have right TO have the judgment of the Senate that
he Senate hat tie majority oyerrarr the ni1orfy ii
Chair declares II the other way do not mean of course
to imply tQt the Chair would decide the other way
but Illustrate this propositon There being vote OF
yeas sixteen nays sixteen he Chair says the yeas have it,
the nays have -either waysurely have right to
the Judgment of the Senate upon it.
Mr. BENJAMIN. IL seems to me that the Chair has de-
cided two propositions From OF those propositions
there has been an appeal from the other there has not
been an appeal III Inc mrs, @ @ was Sosa i ns h
out of order That decision from which an APP
peal was taken When the votes counted they
found equally divided The Chair then decided upon that
state Of facts that the appeal was loshat the decision
of the Chair sustained Now the proposition to which
the senator from North Carolina proposes to take APP
peal is this decision of the Chair that equally divided
vote upon appeal point OF order airms the de-
cison originally rendered II is from that proposition
the appeal taken, and upon that proposition can
| not conceive how appeal can be denied
Mr. BRIGHT The rule in this case, apprehend set
ties the question, far the Chair is concerned The
rule gives the Chair the power Of deciding whether an
amendment is order not II the Chair decides that
in order it requires majority of the Senate to over
rule that decision Now, in this case, majority Of the
Senate have overrued the decision 1t requires
o
peal be persisted in and the question is put ought to be
in this shape Shall the decision of the Chair be reversed
by the Senae2whether sixteen votes against sixteen re-
the decision of the Chair
Mr. BADGER Let call the attention of the senator
from Indiana the fact that he does not meet the PROPOSE
ton before the Senate There is vote of sixteen to six
teen the Chair that therefore the decision Of
| the Chair is affirmed by the Senate
| Mr. BRIGHT. Because majority has not reversed it.
/ Mr. BADGER | am not entering into that will as
sumo for the present that the honorable senator from In
diana is correct that the Chair is correct but happen
have different opinion, and take appeal from that
decision The Chair says am not entitled to It, Now, II
is question of construction; and like every other ques-
ton is 10 be decided by this body The Chair says there
being an equal division the Chair is sustained ! say,
there being equal division the decision OF the Chair IS
reversed. Well, now, have we not right to have the
Judgment of the body upon that question not en-
ering into the merits OF the original question at all am
not undertaking decide whether the ruhg Of the
Chair is right wrong but say have a right to test
that ruling by appeal TO the Senate That is all. ]
very respectfully submit to the Presiding Officer that
think he that that question upon which al all
he not right TO decide without appeal
/ Mr RUSk. The Senate was not paying much attention
the time this matter discussed and bare quorum
voted have sort Of doubt that this amendment comes
clearly within the Tue-that II Is not excluded by IT. We
are delaying time with it, Here is treaty stipulation to
pay money; the amendment is to carry out treaty and
when we propose to make an appropriation for that Pu
pose and pay Of the benecaries OF the treaty II is
determined under that rule to be out of order The hon
orable senator from Wisconsin Mr.. WALKER says can
appropriate at all under il If that is the case But
getting into hobble about the matter. We have one
decision after another and suggest TO the senator from
North Carolina whether il would not be better instead Of
following up his appeal 70 get some one who voted IN the
majority to move reconsideration 10 offer the amend
again. when the bill is reported and we have fun
I Senate.
gesed by my friend from Texas but then do not want 1t
to be understood that when Presiding Officer OF this body
announces that is carried the announcement is
elusive upon the body because, a have just mentioned
without the slightest mpuaton upon the honorable gem
teman filing the chair if that were and the Chair
decide upon any other question: there being fifteen
yeas and twenty-five nays that the yeas had IT, should
he entirely powerless and minority might determine any
thing having the sanction Of the Chair. only want to
have the Of the Senate in that particular en-
trely indifferent a 10 this particular vote
The PRESIDING OFFICER The Chair will certainly
pu, the question rised by the senator from North Caro-
Lima The Chair has no power TO refuse to put ques-
tons.
i Mr.. BADGER Then sir, have no hesitation in with
drawing the appeal very willing TO withdraw Il aud
let the matter fall do not wish to cnbarass the Senate
I or delay the bill
The PRESIDING OFFICER The appeal being With
Z
Mr. SEBASTIAN. | move to strike out ten and insert
twontyH in line ffyour The object is TO increase the
appropriations for buildings for Indian agencies from Sl0
600 TO $4,000 have received letter from the Indian
Office the subject which explains the necessity for
/ this
DEPARTMENT Tm INTERIOR
Office Indian Affairs, May l. 1854.
Ss In view or the necessity Of removing the present lo
eates Of the Indian agencies in Territories, and
also Of the negotiations which being made with the In
dans Of Nebraska and the necessity Of removing
the agencies situated there, have the honor TO recommend
M of tfuqu
FOR agency buildings be increased by $4,000 that the
amount applicable to that object win be 5000
Very respectfully, your obedicnt servant,
i GEORGE W. MANYPENNY,
Commissioner.
u Chairman Committee Indian Affairs T. s. Senate.
i The amendment agreed TO-
Il Mr. SEBASTIAN. am further directed by the Commit-
Indian Affairs TO offer hefoowing as an additional
section;
sro - And o. afurhcr enacted, That the President be-
and he is hereby authorized and required in ell where
hy law treaty spnlaons the United states have engaged
to Of money ia stocks for the benefit Of the In
dans bold the in trust and interest thereon
paw perpetual annue the said 10 be in
vested held in trust and the equal 70 the principal
Of said perpetual annuitcs 10 be- with the assent Of the In
dians necessary invested in safe and profitable stocks
OF Of the States IN this Uniop commuted into shorter
annuea the principal faid to the Indians the Pres
dent in his discretion may think most advantageous TO the
Indians.
Mr.. President the United States indebted by treaty
spulauons 20 Indian tribes in about three and half
millions OF dollars which they engaged many years ago 60
invest in safe and profitable stocks for the benefit Of the In
diane Heretofore in consequence Of the embarrassed state
Of exchcquer that treaty stipulation has been
deemed and tho consequence is that appropriatnR
she interest upon the money every year while we have an