Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-01-18

been referred the resolution of Mr.. EWING, pro-
posing an amendment 10 the Constitution of the
United States TO the mode of electing the Pres
ident and Vice President, made report thereon.
The amendment proposes to abolish the inter
venion of electors and destroy the general ticket
system by dividing the States into the same num-
Der of districts each State has senator's and
Representatives in Congress
The committee say they have had the benefit Of
an oral and interesting exposition of the important
question by the honorable mover of the resolution,
and had bestowed much anxious consideration
upon the subject. They are satisfied there is
conviction in the public mind of serious evils in
separately connected with the present mode of
election; and believing that there is now calm in
the political elements, the committe deem il due
that Congress should propose some carefully con-
sidered amendment in the premises. They there
fore ask that the committee be discharged from
the further consideration of the subject and offer
resolution, that, the Senate concurring a select
joint committee, 10 consist OF nine members of the
House and i've members of the Senate, be APP
pointed, 10 whom shall be referred the said propo-
sition as 10 the mode of electng the President
and Vice President Of the United States, with in
strnctons that they take the matter into conside-
ration, and report in such manner as 10 them may
seem expedient.
Mr. McMULLEN moved that the report be laid
upon the table and printed.
Mr. EWING inquired what would be the effect
of that motion, should il prevail.
The SPEAKER replied, it would practically
close up all further inquiry
Mr. EWING made an explanation with refer
ence TO the subject before the House, and re-
quested the gentleman from Virginia to withdraw
his motion.
Mr. McMULLEN said he had not, as the gem
tleman proposed acted prematurely in this matter,
and that he was now ready 10 act on the question.
He proposed to test the sense OF the House.
Before the subject was disposed OF, the morning
hour expired.
TERMINATION OF DEBATE.
. Mr.. JONES, of Tennessee, offered resolution,
which was adopted, to terminate the debate on the
resolutions TO refer the several branches Of the
Presidents message TO the appropriate committees
on Thursday, the 10Th instant.
NEW YORK PARTY CONTROVERSY.
The House resolved itself into Committee Of
the Whole on the State of the Union.
Mr.. kEITT was entitled TO the floor, but being
too nnwell TO address the committee to-day, the
subject pending was laid aside, and at the sugges-
ton Of Mr.. HOUSTON, the committee took up
the navy pension bill which after being read, was
laid aside TO be reported to the House, as was
also the bill making appropriations for the West
Point Military Academy.
The deficiency bill was next taken up, when
Mr.. WALSH, conceiving that the time for
the national democrats Of New York 10 speak
thad more than fully arrived proceeded to draw
THE broad line of distinction between the hards"
and the "softs" He indicated the former
from sweeping denunciations and traced the his
tory OF the latter, who. he said, were like band
OF bandits, drawn together for the sake Of common
plunder, without honest political principles.
Mr.. SMITH, OF Alabama, said this was very
important question, not understood by him, and
he wished to know what was the difference be-
tween New York " hard" aud New York
sofl?'
Mr.. WALSH replied, The difference between
an honest man and rogue.
This remark excited excessive laughter
Mr.. SMITH, Of Alabama, said he thought the
reply of the gentleman equivocaI as applicable 10
the softs' and the g hards.'
Mr.. WALSH said that must be left to the gen.
tlemans understanding.
Mr.. SMITH repeated, he was really DESTROYS 10
be informed ofthe difference b ,tween the 'shards"
and the "sofs;" but il being characteristic Of the
gentleman, he was excusable for not explaining
further.
Mr.,WALSH said he should like 10 know wha,
the gentleman meant by the remark character
isic.n
Mr.. SMITH replied, he meant broad, blunt, and
not always satisfactory.
Mr.. WALSH said the difference between the
barnburners, or abolitionists in disguise, or the
softs," and the "hards," was simply that the
former never did anything openly, but acted Sc
cretly for their own ACKNOWLEDGMENT, going over
to the enemy 10 benefit themselves.
Mr.. SMITH, to be little playful, compared the
controversy in New York to state of things
which Gulllver saw during his travels in Lilput
one party contending for the old and ancient way
of breaking eggs on the small end. and the other
insisting on an older custom Of breaking eggs at
the big end. The question between the " hards"
and " solts is this: they want to stone the Presi
dent TO death, and the question is whether they
shall do i with hard or soft eggs. [Laughter.l
He hoped the gentleman from New York, (Mr.
CUTTlNe) would give them true history of the
controversy.
Mr.. CUTTING accordingly took the floor, and,
referring to the gentlemans quotation from Gull
iiver's travels, said there was recent period in
he history Of the country when gentlemen from
he south did not stop to inquire who were those
who stood by them, through good report and bad
and, when the storm swept over the south, We're
true 10 the constitutional rights Of the south.
This remark was received with applause by
southern and other members No one then rose
IN his place TO read from Gulliver's travels He
then entered fully into the history Of the shards'
and "softs," and was listened TO with marked at
tenion by gentlemen all sides Of the House.
Mr.. Smith, of Alabama, resumed the floor, when
the committee rose
And the House adjourned.