The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1859-11-08

Appropriation Bill imperfect. The Observer says:
"When did the BILL amended by the Sen itc go back
to the House. and how long did the House keep it with
action? These are important points.
1t passed in the Senate Tuesday, only two
DAYS before Congress adjourned The House discus
sed it, rejected the amendments and sent back, not
bill, but the bill that the Senate had amend
ed, emitting of the Senate's amendments. A
committee of conference was appointed three members
of each House, who unanimously reported the House BILL
substantially. The House forthwith concurred, and
passed the bill. The Senate passed it through its st
reading also, and would have passed it finally but that
Senators Toombs and Benjamin. democrats, peremptory
objected to its I'd reading single objection the
last day of the session was fatal to the bill. Senator
Tombs claims the honor of having defeated it, He is
fairly entitled it, and the blame does the
House, or any member thereof
Our recollection of the matter does not with
the above, entirely. The statement we made is sus-
tanned, think, by letter from Senator Clingman
published after the adjournment of Congress. He
says that the last night of the session the House took
up the bill amended by the Senate, but instead Of
rejecting agreeing to the Senate's amendments,
majority passed IA resolution, in substance, that the
Senate had violated the constitutions which resolution
with the bill, returned to the Senate. Mr. c. says
that for time the House refused to consider the
BILL The Observer is correct in saying that the House
did not send back BILL but the same bill the Sc
nate had amended; but we think it is mistaken about
the House rejecting the amendments before sending the
bill back. That body sent it back with insulting
declaration that the Senate had violated the Consttu
ton. This movement headed by Mr. Grow,
abotonist, End approved of by Gilmer and Vance of
this State, have heretofore asserted After the
bill returned, the Senate asked for committee of
conference. Three members of each House ap-
pointed. The House branch of this committee refused
to consider the old bill but insisted bill. The
Senate branch anxious to pass the appropriation, ac-
cepted a new bill and Immediately reported it to the
Senate about forty minutes before the final adjourn
ment There not enough time to consider the bill
and learn its provisions, have read as the
rules required. Senators Toombs and Benjamin may
objected the passage of the bill because there
was not time sufficient examine its provisions; but
that they responsible for its defeat canndv admit
no matter what Toombs may boastingly claim
We therefore contend that the responsibility of the
defeat of the bill the party in the House which
backed Mr. Grow and endorsed his factious movement
z B. Vance and John A. Gimer being two of the
number. If Grow and those who acted with him, had
been less anxious elbarrass the Administration they
would have merely struck out the amendments of the
Senate and sent back for concurrence but they pre-
ferred otherwise and them the responsibility
justly rests
The main point where differ with our friends of
the Observer the action of the House in regard
to the amendments and the time at which the bill was
returned to the Senate About this think we are
correct though we have the official record to refer
to- relying mainly on recollection Of the matter