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

superintendent, was agreed tO-yeas 10, nays on.
The amendment appropriating $4l3, 500 for
the payment of the volunteers employed in Flor
ida in 1857 and 1858, called into service by the
requisition of the President was agreed to-
yeas SO, nays 53.
The amendment appropriating $1,000 for re-
pairs of the Long Bridge over the Potomac, to
be expended under the direction of the Com
missioner of Public Buildings, was agreed to.
The amendment approprating S38,OOO for
altering and fitting up the old Senate Chamber
for the Supreme Court, and the present Su-
preme Court room for law library, was
agreed to.
The amendment providing that from and
after the lst day of July next the franking
privilege, except so far as conferred by a spe
cial law as personal privilege, be abolished,
was not agreed to-yeas IS, nays 80.
The amendment providing for the contlnu-
ance in force Of the Treasury-note law OF 1857
being reported
Mr.. Jones, of Pennsylvania, raised point of
order, that under the decision of the House on
the Post Office appropriation bill, as well as the
Constitution, the Senate had no right to insert
a clause of this kind in an appropriation bill.
The Speaker thought the point of order came
too late, and, besides, he would override it on
the ground that if sustained it would devolve
upon him the necessity of disposing Of the
amendment of the Senate
Mr.. Jones, of Pennsylvania, appealed from
the decision of the Chair pending which
Mr.. English, Of Indiana, moved that the APP
peal be laid on the table; pending which, the
decision of the Chair was called for.
The Speaker stated that he decided that he
had nothing to do with the question of order,
en- the ground that it was for the House to de-
termine it.
The motion to lay on the table the motion
to reconsider was agreed to-yeas 100, nays 81.
The question recurring on the amendment
Mr.. Andrews, of New York, at twenty
minutes past five o'clock, A. NJ, moved that
the House adjourn which motion did not pre-
vail.
The amendment was then rejected-yeas 90,
nays SO.
Mr.. Marshall of Kentucky, then moved that
the vote by which the amendment was rejected
be reconsidered, and that the motion to recon
slider be laid on the table; which latter motion
was not agreed to-yeas sc, nays SO.
Mr.. Marshall, of Kentucky, then withdrew
the motion to reconsider laughter when
Mr.. Florence, of Pennsylvania renewed the
motion pending which
Mr.. Purviance, Of Pennsylvania, moved that
the motion to reconsider be laid on the table !;
which motion did not prevaI-yeas SO, nays SO.
The vote recurring on the motion to recon
slider
Mr. Potter, of Wisconsin, moved that the
House adjourn which motion did not prevail
The motion to reconsider then prevailed
yeas sc, nays 82-and the amendment was
agreed to, as follows;
Teas-Messrs Ali, Arnold, Atkins, Avery,
Barksdale, Barr, Bocock, Bonham, Bowie,
Boyce, Branch, Bryan, Burnett, Burns, Caskie,
Clark of Missouri, Clay, Cobb, John Cochrane,
Corning, Craig of Missouri, Craige of North
Carolina, Crawford, Davis of Indiana, Davis of
Mississippi, Dowdell, Edmundson, Elliott, Eng
lish, Eustis, Faulkner, Florence, Foley, Garnet,
Gilhs Gilmer, Greenwood, Gregg, Groesbeck,
Grover, Hall of Ohio, Hawkins, Hodges, Hop
kins, Houston, Jackson, Jenkins, Jewett, Jones
of Tennessee, Lamar, Landy, Letcher, Maclay,
McKibben, Mcqueen, McRae, Marshall of Hi
nois, Mason, Maynard, Miles, Mllson, Moore,
Niblack, Pendleton, Peyton, Phelps ofMissouri,
Powell, Reagan, Ruffin, Russell, Sandidge, Saw
age, Scales, Scott, Soaring, Shaw of North
Carolina, Shorter, Singleton, Smith of Illinois,
Smith of Tennessee, Stallworth, Stephenson,
Stewart of Maryland, Taylor of New York,
Taylor Louisiana, Underwood, Vallandigham,
Vance, Watkins, White, Whiteley, Winsow,
Woodson, Wortendyke, and Wright of Tennes-
see-94.
Nays - Messrs. Abbott, Adrain, Andrews,
Bennett, Bingham, Blair, Bliss, Brayton, Buff
linton, Burlingame, Cavanaugh, Chaffee, Chap
man, Clark of Connecticut, Clark of New York
Colfax, Comins, Covode, Cragin, Curtis, Davis
of Maryland, Davis of Massachusetts, Davis of
Iowa, Dawes, Dean, Dewart, Dodd, Durfee,
Edie, Farnsworth, Fenton, Foster, Gooch, Good
Harris, Haskin, Hoard, Horton, Howard, Huy
Ter, Jones of Pennsylvania, Keim, Kellogg
Kilgore, Knapp, Kunkel of Pennsylvania,
Leidy, Letter, Lovejoy, Marshall of Kentucky,
Matteson, Morgan, Morrill,, Morse of Maine
Mott, Murray, DIN, Palmer, Parker, Phillips
Potter, Purviance, Reilly, Robbins, Roberts
Royce, Sherman of Ohio, Sherman of New
York, Spinner, Stanton, Stewart of Pennsylva
MIA, Tappan, Thayer, Tompkins, Wade Wal
bridge, Waldron, Washburn of Wisconsin
Washburne of Illinois, Washburn of Maine,
and Wood-83.
All the amendments of the Senate to this bill
having been disposed Of
| Mr.. Phelps, Of Missouri asked the House to
take from the Speakers table the message of
the Senate in relation to the disagreement of
the two bodies with reference to the Post Office
appropriation bill, accompanied by resolution
appointing committee of conference on their
part, and requesting the House to appoint a
like committee on their part, to consult as to
what action ought to be taken by the respective
Houses on said bill. He moved that com
mittee of conference be appointed.
Mr.. Grow, of Pennsylvania, said, if the Chair
decided that by taking up the message the
House took up the bill, he should object.
The Speaker replied, that if the report should
be adopted, the committee of conference must
necessarily have the bill in their possession.
Mr.. Grow. / object
Mr.. Davis, of Maryland, said the message
meant virtually an appointment of committee
of conference to settle how the House should
dispose of that bill, which could only be done
by the House considering it, and that they had
determined not to do. From that point he did
not mean to recede.
Mr.. Phillips, Of PENNSYLVANIA, also stated
that, if the committee were to decide upon the
merits of the bill, he hoped the House would
not do it.
Mr.. Phelps remarked that there had been a
deliberate expression on the part of the House
in reference to the action of the Senate, and it
was probable the committee of conference e
would be composed of a majority of those whose
sentiments correspond with that of the action of
| the body.
Mr.. Grow contended that the proceedings of
| the House had been in accordance with Parlia-
mentary usage, and cited numerous precedents
which were established as early as l640 down
to 1864 If the proposition were to confer with
the Senate, he would have no objection, but he
was unwilling to take up the bill.
The Speaker, with the hope of being able to
effect something that would produce result,
decided that he would retain the bill in his
possession, so that if a committee of conference
| should be appointed, they would confer merely
| upon the power of the two bodies.
Mr.. Phelps then modified his first motion by
moving that the report be taken up, and com
mttee of conference appointed to confer with
| the Senate on the power of the two Houses.