The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1859-02-02

they did not desire TO defeat the bill
MIR. WASHBURN, of Maine, admitted that MIR. LsfcH-
right ia reference 10 the bill passed by the SD
Congress, but subsequent other session Of
Congress- he maintained that the question had been de
cded as he stated
The SPEAKER win the gentleman from Maine be
kind enough 20 furnish the Chair with the precedent
Mr.. WASHBuRN replied that he searching for It,
Mr.. LETCHER resuming) stated that according 10 his
recollection LIe bill had passed but Congress
The only occasion of which he had any recollection was
in 1853 when Col Benton made his celebrated speech
against il and it then considered in Committee of
the Whole. IL seemed TO him, If there bill
that should be considered by the House with all the
formality il was this identical bill. IL had been
the stand by for fifty years, had been considered
again and again, sometimes passed one house and
sometimes passed the other and uniformly, when IL
passed both houses IL met by executive veto, and
thereby defeated When bill of this SORT had been ve
toed twice he could why it should not be
considered In Committee of the Whole.
Mr.. BURLfNGAM E remarked that the present Execu-
tive voted TO report it from the COMMITTEES ON Foreign
Affairs IN the Senate, and voted for it in the Senate,
and he presumed from the fact that the Washington Union
had published speech of Webster the subject the FIX
ecutve still 10 favor of the passage of the bill
Mr. LEICHER desired to know what inference the
gentleman drew from that operating upon the action
of the House. Did the gentleman desire to bring here
the opinion of the Executive and plead that power
sufficient TO control the action of the body Was that
the intention Of that side of the House. who had said
much about executive dication and executive influence
Suppose the President had voted for it, and bad reported
it from the committee was that any reason why the
House should depart as he believed they would from their
rules so far from It, IL ought 10 nave the otef eicet
Mr. BURLlNGAME WAS OF the belief that this course
of the President would not effect much
MI LEICHfh did not think the gentleman "oaiu heip
his position by that shift
Mr. DAVIS, OF Maryland inquired whether the gem
eman from Virginia rested his point of order upon the
following words IN the seventh section ana such STOCKS
redeemable out of the treasury :
Mr. LErCHER replied that he did IN part Inc sec
there in treas
ply 1t to the redemption OF these stocks IN reply 70
what Mr. BuRLNdAME said he remarked that his feco
lection was not at fault Mr. Buchanan was member Oh
Mt Polk cabinet at the time the bill had been vetoed,
and he supposed that he must have been consulted
n iloniit 70, - lias' aas ny; ~,
to lay ON the table would De In order at TINS .ime.
Mr. LEIchEh stated that IN ne preferred the ques
~, I,s,,ror,sT .,tf - !. -, ,tart;n,
to the l3lst rule which sets forth that amy motion or
proposition for tax charge upon the people shall be
s' ~. !" ~ sa .. VIZ la barasnr hoo
construed to mean bills in relation to the tariff The
word charge had broader Specification and in his
opinion included the particular pm uhuef coSuo'auo
Inns el woua vgy clearly o, aS 9na upon s" e I
49, - I,iar pas;Jos tba nort;on referred Ia Inv the
gentleman from Virginia, the eleventh section went ON
arrange how the five millions should be disposed OF
y ~ .', ,;t 80, ~ l, 49,; ,a,I i eor.r gnsiJ
cred as Invalid It being the true intent and meaning OF
All. ~ ,h,t tha d,n,ages cannot he considered In the
asst'b"'o .uo ' 49, =. Il, pi sr a, IN, ~
to that section 10 show what the iracrs Vi thc Dill sup
posed ii had accomplished.
Mr. HUGHES. of Indiana then moved that The bill be
Ia u, ~ ,L,
Mr. LETCHER and other gentlemen appealed to Mr.
HuGIrs to withdraw his motion.
Mr. HUGHES declined ON the ground that, if the
ton should prevail il would save time and relieve the
Chair of an embarrassing question Of order
Mr. WASHBIJRN of Elaine desired 10 call the at
fr.. H. .zt
upon the New York fire bill
Debate not being in order
The question was put and the motion that the bill be
laid on the table did not prcvaycas 75 nays lO6
follows:
-
ma, Dans Chapman Clark Of Missouri Cobb CockerI cage
North Carolina Crawford Curry Davis of Indiana Dowcl FL
nmnds9m Eho't Enssn raraworh roy 49,. SahG S
Hons Iarsns Iewctt Jnes of Tsnneee Jones OF
Kgore Krnkc Of Lamar Lawrence Letter
lovelcy Mcqueen Mason Maynard Miller Mson MONTGOMERY,
n" ns s , lyon S LINZ, 81 N, coi" sh, s ,
c,n smith Of tennessee s,lwortb stevenson TAYLOR Of louis
vaanleham, Vance waslbunc Of Illinois Watkins, White,
",now Wright OF Seoglai ahd "t,s'' !" iennessse-.o.
Rn Rnam mh ,,i.s ,wis Rray,or un,m mr.
nyauc Case Chaaee Cavscn clay Clark b cocrane Of New
York John cocrane Of New York cofx comis ccyode cra
er"s o. holi' nss 9 Nm iy sor :, Io.,a
ooh Goodwin granger Hall Of ohio Hall Of Massachusetts
IiAskn ac Hickman Hoard Hodges Horton Howard kcim,
Kelsey Knapp Knnkei q lennyivani Leach etsher Nacay
49,, ,, ,, mai &c. y, ionnr,,ani, Marrts ~ M
n anc Of New Murray DIN, Parker, Zen
Iicton iSe Potter ielte furymnoc Riy Mc.nd ,onnas'
smith Of Virginia stanton stephens stewart Of Tap
Taylor New York Tascr TomIns Trppe, Underwood,
wae Ma'pnse, Mnron, M",on Man, Wssio1rm" a
zolieoGerEioe g..
. ~. or,,p,,p,5o - c.o.,. .,, ala 80. ,,,s, %