Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1858-1860, 1859-06-22


carry on the plan or plans aforesaid"
Here was the origin of this measure.
1t was proposed by Democratic Sen
ator, and adopted by a Democratic Sen
ate-the state of parties in that body
at that time being, Democrats, 34---
Wings, 24-Free- Sellers, 2. 1t passed
the Senate without even the ayes and
noes being called. (See Congressional
Globe, vol. 81, part Q, page 1850
The reader is requested to note par
ticularly: ~ 80 - e~5s11
!. That under this provision of the
Senate, the plan of extension was to
be agreed upon and adopted, not by
the President, but, by the joint COM
mittee of the two Houses of Congress.
1t was made the duty of the President
to appoint an architect to carry out
SUCH plan as the committee shonld
adopt, and to direct and superintend
the expenditure of the appropriation.
2. That this provision of the Senate
was in the form of an amendment to
the Civil and Diplomatic Appropriation
bill, which had already passed the
House of Representatives. This amend
ment, therefore, together with the
other amendments of the Senate, up
wards of ninety in all, had to be acted
upon by the House, and with the bill
was accordingly sent back to the House.
The House, acting in committee of
the whole, agreed to the greater part
of the amendments, but disagreed as
to thirteen of them, among the latter of
which was the amendment providing
for the extension of the Capitol.
Upon these disagreeing votes of the
two Houses a committee of conference
was appointed, consisting, on the part
of the House, of tn. H. BAYLY, of Vir-
ginia, and GEORGE w. JONES, of Ten
nessee, Democrats; and SAn. F. Vim
TON, of Ohio, Wing.
This committee, on the part of the
House, after conference had with the
| Senate's committee, made report in
which they recommended among other
things that the House should agree to
the Senate's provision for the extension
of the Capitol, but in the following
form, as a substitute for the original
resolution of the Senate:
For the extension of The Capitol. accord
| ing to such plan may be approved by the
! President of the United States, 500 600; to
be expended under his direction, by such ar
chitect as he may appoint to execute the
| same"
To this the House assented; (see
Cong. Globe, vol.21, part 2, page 2O22) ;
and thus this initiative measure for the
extension of the Capitol was passed by
both Houses of Congress, in neither
of which had Mr.. FILLMoRE's admins
tration majority of supporters, and
without any recommendation whatever
from either himself or heads of depart
ments.
What, now, becomes of Gov. HAIR,
RIs's averment, that the measure origi-
mated with the FILLMORE administra-
ton? He was there; he saw all that
passed in relation to it; he knew all
about it? VIII he plead that he forgot
the truth of the matter? When he does,
we will take his plea into consideration.
But Gov. HARRIS asserts that he
Opposed" the measure. When and
how did he oppose it? We demand
the proofs of his opposition. If he
forgot that Congress, and not Mr.. Fill
MoRE's administration, originated the
measure, he may have forgotten bis
own course in relation to it! We have
examined the record, and we cannot
find that he opposed it at all, either by
speaking or voting against it! If he
had opposed it would not some evidence
of his opposition be found on the Con
gressional records ? In tile absence
of such evidence, may it not be fairly
presumed that he did not oppose it; es-
pecially as the Democratic committee
of conference, on the part of the House,
one of whom was the Hon. GEORGE
w. JONES, of Tennessee, had recon-
meDded its adoption
But Gov. HARRIS was one of the
sixty-two representatives Gall Demo
Gratis but three), who voted against
the bill, which he says contained the
originating provision for the extension
of the Capitol He himself was one oil
the sixty-two; and with a personal
knowledge of the proceeding, he cites
the votes of those sixty-two members,
his own included, against the bill, as
evidence to show that he and they
were opposed to, aud voted against
the extension clause, which he says was
contained in the bill. To leave nc
doubt of his meaning, be says distinct
ly, in the extract of his speech quoted
above from the Union and american:
1.-The proposition TO commence this worl
(the Capitol extension) passed tue House o
Representatives, August 9th, 1850"
Not sol The Governor was fher,
at The time. and may be presumed tC
kno,c all about this matter. But his
statement is grossly deceptive anC