The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-06-10
Mr.! Mr. G Nv IN l I object 9 that.

modon to direct the Secretary 10 rssr tEe o az Rsr
resentatiycs etnrn the bill.
Mr. BAfARD. merely wish 20 express my regret that
the from Indiana has thought necessary 70 refer 10
my personal with h severely orteisng his
action. dissentsd from the opinion that should
pass certainly expressed my conviction that
surprised at his The high respect which have
for him. and the general estimate have formed Of his char
acier, would prevent from any unknd criticism. was
surprised that the bill should be passed without such
animation the principles involved mered IL II is
turned whether devote i that labor which might be
desired 10 doubtful and the why doubt IL - this
Yesterday when made tho proposition TO postpone the bill,
the Senate determined not 70 postpone ~ and am unwilling
TO obrude upon them in reference the examination OF
question connected with private claim when have had
sufficient experience already be satisfied that they
wiling to listen g any discussion private claim, 10
matter how extensive may be the principles Involved IN ~
how great The effect Of the precedent that is established
for the purpose Of Disturbing money Of the public
treasury do not desire therefore on subject on which
senator's unwilling 70 listen 70 investigate, but are TO
vote on faith interfere with their views. Il enough for
me 70 make up my mind and determine my
MIR PEARCE, The motion pending is TO send 70 the
House Of Representatives requee the bill to
The PRESIDING OFFICER, Yes sir.
MIR. PEARCE. must express the hope that that viii
not be done II is rather unusual proceeding, and, unt
Of late years. almost unknown 10 the Ssnate and
think should not be resored q except upon exs~a-dray
OCCASIONS Now, agree with the senator from Deia-
ware that this bill ought have been passed u struck
me that the claim Of Mr. Myere Of strict right,
and scarcely Of strong equity look upon rather
payment of the 100000 proposed. The Senate Thought
otherwise, after quite much discussion usually have
upon private bill and doubt much whether ought
send 10 the House of Representatives for the bill and wheh
the treasury the United States viii be very much beno
flied by the operation. think that the debate which
would give rise would be quite expensive the payment
of the proposed II rather small affair." and,
has gone from think the Senate ought not 90 get into
the practice Of sending the House Of Representatives for
bills which have passed hope shall not d. now
for Mr. President be observed that we do gotnto
this practice leads another evil is hasty
and nconsderae passage Of bills which do
attention they always ought TO have This habit Of sending
to the House Ct Representative say may occasion that
practice II determine that will not send there for
private bills which passed Senate probably sha
DO more careful in the future to investigate the merits OF
claim before passage
Mr.. BRIGHT the motion which have made is Of
very that has been made repeated
y this body during this During the last week
the from Arkansas Mr. JoHNsoS made one, If
two motions OF similar chaacterone recolcct very
distinctly The from Maryland says this IL small
matter So it is. Il is appropriation Of only 10000
Mr. JOHNSON viii ask the gentleman what two mo-
| tons | made?
| Mr. BRIGHT I understood that the senator from Ar
kansas made directing the Secretary tho
House b which had been passed by the Senate
Mr.. JOHNSON. Yes, sir; one motion IN reference to
one bill.
Mr. BRIGHT This is motion Of common occurrence.
1t is which is repeatedly made here The principle IL
the same, whether the be large small. As sta
ted when up before, voted against this claim twice
voted upon yesterday for the third timc and then
ted for under the impression that the claim was Just
that at least ought pay the Individual some
amount first voted 10 tx the at $1,000 but fall
ing in that preferred TO for appropriating $4,000
rather than that the claimant should receive nothing re-
greet that The honorable from Missouri, Mr ATcH-
sos whore constituent understand the claimant Is, who
with the claim did yesterday US the
benefit Of his counsel in regard BECAUSE them he
has stated satisfactory reasons to my mind Why nc voted
against IT,
SIR will placed attitude Of having voted for
s,m 1 6 ss SO Ss aad may O. That s
confidently that i and other senator's speak that
manner think j. proper that should be reconsdered
in order thai they may have the opportunity OF showing
hat IL is So The senator from Delaware remarks that
his private conversation with me- he did not intend any
that he regards the which generally give here,
such questions, correct am very happy TO have ms
good opinion that point desire to continue those re-
aIions between us and only do il by voting against
improper claims IL this be Of that character am for
giving him opportunity Of showing ~ hence ask that
the bill may be returned % the Senate am inclined to be-
leyc that there may be rcthing wrong about IT,
Mr.. WALKER. Mr. President, doubt whether this is
not frat that such motion has been made for
The reason for when hi9 y now msfe ds rue
times authorize Secretary recall bills which have been
the House ofRepreocnayeg but for what reason
Why, for similar 70 that which was gwen few
days ago by the from Arkansas Mr. JOHNSON for
recalling the bill which he then bed have brought back
the Senate namely that the Senate had committed an
In that case BY the BILL sent TO the House Of Rep
proposed repeal law when intend
ed TO repeal another.
| Mr. JOHNSON. Il was an error Of date.
| Mr.. WALKER. There Of date, and con-
scqucny necessary get the bill back 10 order 70
correct action Bot any call to mind an Ia
where have requested the House Of Representa-
lives 70 return bin that might consider s merits
Not al all For one, al events, have remembrance
Of any such Now, u proposed 70 recall i# bl Tor
the purpose OF discussing Il IL nopoo give senators an OF
poruny show that ought % be passed, when that
was the main consideration tho FIRST instance. rernom
Der that when this before the Senate former
occhsion one Of tho then from Missouri MIR BES-
rowl came down upon with such argument and such
speech IL rarely heard IN 4 legislative body remen-
Der the effect and force 81 that speech but Notwithstanding
T. the Senate took the and pessed the BILL They parsed
/ il more than
Mr. ATCHISoN. think this IL the first time i passed
/ Mr. BRIGHT. II failed before.
| Mr.. WALKER The gentleman VIII find that, on that
OCCASION IL passed the Senate but both houses At
/ the time.
| Mr. BADGER. Ny friend from Wisconsin y right
The bin passed the Senate referred To- having
frat passed the House but amendment was made ~ inc
Senae tha, bill with the proposed amendment went
back 10 House and there nd on the tsblc That -
| he way in which lost - that session.
II Mr. WALKER. thought my memory dd not iail me
IN regard 10 the fact the Senate had then passed the ball
Now shoud DO pleased hcarthe from Missouri,
who proposes address the Sera,s upon this subject but
do not think will be safe policy for 70 recall bills
from the House Of Representatives for The purpose, not Of
correcting mistake bot Of considering them upon her
merits
Mr.. kTCHIsoN Tho penator from WISCONSIN j. mis-
taken DO not propose making speech - relation % The
all But tho proportion submitted nov
by the from Indiana % the senate -, me say mat
Of frequent Under our rules nree days
are allowed within which RECOMMENDATION 81 p
that hes been passed rejected by the Senate When bill
is passed sometimes il lies upon the Secretsrya table until
tie three days cspse; but that s generally done only upon
he .iegeson may be rcconeidercd. Tn. only meth
al bv which reach reconsideration ~ b has
Il nr.sed from the the House ~ Representative,
even within the three Gays allowed under rules, by
N