The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1859-03-10

being made, the bill could not have its second
reading to-day.
Mr. Fessenden said his side of the Chamber
| were ready for a vote and would not be respon-
sible if the bill were lost.
Mr.. Mason would have preferred giving di-
rect vote upon the bill to meeting the question
in the form in which it was presented by the
committee of conference, but he was not anx-
ious about it. So far as his vote went, the rights
of the Senate should be indicated against rev.
dictionary acts on the part of other branches
| of the Government.
/ Mr. Hale thought it was not strictly correct
to characterize this as the first revolutionary act
] upon the part of this Government. There had
been an act committed by the Senate aided by
the vote of the Senator from Virginia, vastly
| more revolutionary in its character than any
| thing that had been attempted by the House,
and that was the act of the Senate in filling up
the body in disregard of the requirement OF the
| Constitution, which says that the State Legs
latures shall elect Senators, and not that the
| Senate shall elect them. If this country was
/ to fall to decay, and the Constitution was to be
staggered by attacks upon it, the historian who
should chronicle the history Of this country
would not put this down as the first revolution
airy act, but would say that this Senate, which
was so full of Indignation to-day, had set a
/ vastly more evil example than that.
I
Mr.. Douglas was sorry to see Appropriation
bills defeated on a question Of the punctlio be-
tween the Senate and House of Representatives.
| 1t would be better to act upon the merits OF a
BILL rather than upon point of dignity involved.
He did not believe the dignity of the Senate of
the United States was to be impaired by reso-
lution passed by the House of Representatives /;
nor should the Senate be so sensitive at the
| phraseology of the House to obstruct the
public business on a mere point of etiquette.
Mr.. Toombs replied, that this was not a
question of dignity or question of punctiliO,
| but it was great question of constitutional
! right-one which a Senator cannot surrender,
whatever may be his wishes, without betraying
his trust The Senator from New Hampshire
had the audacity to stand up here and call that
/ revolutionary which was legtimately done by
the very parties to whom the Constitution gives
| .he right to decide such questions. The Su-
| preme Court of the United States had decided
| against that gentlemans ideas Of constitutional
| law, and he doubtless considered that revolu-
| tionarv too. Every doctrine that did not square
with that Senator'S ideas of the Constitution
was revolutionary; but he could not accept
that definition of what was revolutionary and
what was not Mr.. T. proceeded to speak on
the merits of the question; but, in the midst
of his remarks, the clock indicated the hour of
! twelve.
The Vice President The hour having ar
rived for the expiration of this Congress, de-
clare the Senate adjourned sine die.
HOUSE
| Mr. Arnold, of Connecticut, moved that the
! rules be suspended, in order to enable him to
move that the Committee of the Whole be dis
| charged from the further consideration of the
Senate bill for the reliefof David Myerle which
motion was not agreed to-yeas ia, nays Ga
twothirds not voting in the affirmative.
| On motion of Mr.. Phelps, of Missouri, the
| Senate having returned the bill making appro-
priatons for the naval service for the year end
! ing june 80 1860, and insisted on its disagree
| 'ment to the amendments of the House, the
| House insisted upons its disagreement, and
asked for a committee of conference.
Mr. Kunkel, of Maryland, moved that the
rules be suspended, in order to enable him to
| report from the Committee on Accounts the fol
lowing resolution:
ReSolred, That the Committee on Accounts
be and they are hereby authorized to audit, set
tie with, and allow, all lawful or reasonable
compensation, to all such persons as may have
been actually employed IN the service of the
House during the present Congress, and that
all accounts so allowed by said committee shall
be paid out of any money in the Treasury that
may have been appropriated for the mscella
neous or contingent expenses of the House OF
Representatives.
The question being TAKEN the rules were sus
+ pended-veas l67, nays 81.
! The resolution was then adopted.
Mr. Dodd, of New York, from the committee
i 4liss l-ai4S af III
the citizens of Washington and Georgetown
with Potomac water, and preserving the Wash
ington aqueduct, submitted a report.
The report provides for the appointment o
an ohcerofthe United States corps Of engineers
to take charge of the work, at a compensation
no greater than his regular pay and also pro
svides that the citizens of Washington anC
Georgetown shall have power to establish {
complete system of sewers in aid Of the execu
Mr.. Jones, of Tennessee, moved that the re
port he laid on the table; which motion did no
prevail.
The report was then adopted.
Mr.. Nichols, Of Ohio, then called up the re
port of the select committee appointed by the
House toinvestigate the charges against mem
her of the Committee on Accounts, the pending
question being on the adoption of the follow
ing resolution:
ResOtced, That, upon a review of the test
mOny taken in the matter or charges agains
John A. Soaring, member of the House from
, the State of New York, and chairman of tn,
| 81
justify his expulsion
Mr.. Nichols stated that since the resolution
had been prepared, facts had come to tn,
knowledge of the committee, which in his opin
ion, and the opinion of the gentleman from Nortl
Carolina, Mr.. WinslOw, should have induced
them to have gone further, and completely exon
Grated Mr. Soaring. When the resolution haC
been introduced, he had no right to know, from
the charges, who was implicated; but he die
know that the gentleman from New York wa.
f the gentleman ,inted at. In justice to tn,
t Clerk, so far as the testimony in this case wa.
, concerned, there was nothing whatever reflect
ing upon his character. He demanded the pre-
viOus question.
The previous question being seconded
Mr.. Stanton OF Ohio, moved that the resolu
ton be laid on the table; which motion die
not prevail.
The resolution was then adopted.
Mr.. Crawford, of Georgia, from the commit
: tee of conference on the disagreeing votes O
the Two Houses on the army appropriation bill
submitted report The report restores tn,
5 appropriation Of 100000 for Notifications anC
2 experiments; fixes the appropriation for ord
D nance and ordnance stores at 5000. 600, instead
of S2500O0, placed in the original bill re
c stores the appropriation for the Benica arsenal
f leaves out entirely the Senate amendmen
/ providing iof the payment to the several State
j. the interest they may have lost or paid upol
r. moneys expended during the war fish anC
; the wars subsequent to that period. The ap
c preparations for Notifications were agreed upoI
: as follows; Fort Knox, $4,000; Fort Mont
d gomery, $4,000; Fort Carroll, $4,000; For
e Delaware, S73,G0G; Fort Calhoun, $4,000
/ Fort Smith, $4,000; Fort Taylor, $4,000
$ Font Gaines $aO,OOO.l He demanded the pre-
vlous question.
S The previous question being seconded tn,