Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1860-06-18

uittoos VI inNesilkhuon from TIE klouee, hnu lucy
had been repeatedly grati6ed upon such applca-
tion lilo reviewed the facts upon which the several
resolutions were predicatod. and insisted that no
member could consistently vote "no" upon any
one Of them. In conclusion, he demanded the
previous question; which was seconded.
Mr.. BURNETT called for the yeas and nays on
ordering tho main question. and the main question
was ordered to be patysas 101, nays II.
Mr.. MlLlsoN. by unanimous consent, addressed
tho House briefly in support Of his object that
1t was not competent for The House TO pass judE
ment upon any body or any thing upon evidence
taken by acommitteo Of a former Congress. Those
resolutions, which the House was now invited 10
to pass. had not emanntod from any committee,
Tor q minority of n committee was not known in
parliamentary law. They were the views Of the
gentlemen from Ohio alone
The committee Of the last Congress was charged
with m inquiry into certain questions. Thcy made
their report when 1t appeared that, 30 far az tho
inquiry had been prosecuted, there wns no ground
or an impeachment. and there the matter ended.
But Mt the present session Of Congress q standing
committee, without power to scnd for persons and
apcrs without having any document whatever
referred to them, except tho resolution had re-
ported back these resolutions. which nppcsfcd 70
be condcmnatory Of a high officer Of tho Govern.
ment. Tho question was, could that course bs
pnrsuedf lie had no timo for inquiry a. 10 the
aots Of the case. During tho last Congress Il was
tho duty Of tho House TO examine tho evidence,
but niter that 10 WAS tho duty Of nobody, and he
undertook TO say that tho evidence had not been
examined by ten members. Tho committee had no
power to re-examine, nor to mako tho result oh.
tanned by former committee basis Of impea6ff.
ment. The former committee bad closed the svi-
dencs when II had tnken enough 10 justify its con
clusinns; ifthey hid not taken enough 70 satisfy
them they might have gono further And now 10
reopen tho inquiry where tho committee let of,
andEgo on further was An unjust ~ II would be
for one judge TO refuse to take any evidence BE-.
yond what had suihced to satisfy the mind OF
another judge. The committee had no evidence Mt
nil before 1t. They had Ne much right TO read
from a ncwspapor or history A. to take tho testi-
mony from the records Of former Congress. II
wns setting q dangerons precedent for one Con-
gross to revise tho evidence taken by another,
when they had no control over the committee by
which that evidence was taken. Without going
into the merits of tho at ALL no protested aga
inst this whole proceeding, denying the authority
of the House to nrraign any public officer upon
historical evidence.
Mr.. IArroN proceeded TO close tho debate upon
tho resolutions. lilo maintained that Congress
had full power to pass upon tho conduct OF oil
Executive officers. Such power was freely OK
ercised by the paraments OF monarchal countries
oven the most despotc. So long as the House was
expected to vote millions to carry on the govern
mcnt they Ind tho right to inquire into the man.
ner In which the money was expended, and 10
pronounce their judgement upon II: As an Offset
to the argument to tho gentleman from Virginin.
(Mr. Bocock, he cited the opinions Of Clay, Cal
houn, and Webster, maintaing tho right Of Con-
gross to pass upon the conduct Of oil officers Of
Government. This wns tho first time an Execu-
tive officer Of tho Government had shrunk from IN
investigation Of bis official conduct lie denied
that they were doing any in ustice to the Prosi-
dent to any other officer Of the Government tho
only question was Are The facts sot forth in those
r., 4 - H. IA
the facts on which those resolutions were predica.
ted, stating that he confined his remarks entirely
to the majority. Democraticl report Of last Con-
gress. Of which the gentleman from Virginia Mr..
Bocock was the author, In reply to the remarks
Of the gentleman from Virginia. Mr.. Millson, ho
referred to the practice Of the British Parliament.
before which there WAS now q proposition pending
to censnrc the House of Lords.
Mn, BococK moved to lay tho resolutions on
tho table. and drmandedth the yeas and nays on that
motion.
The yeas and nays were ordered, aud resulted as
follows:
For laying on the table, 65 yeas, 100 nays. 1--WE
unit nnmes.) ..r..-. ..-
So tho uouse refused to lay the resolutions on
the table.
Mn. CLARK, of New York, called for a separate
vote on each resolution.
The first resolution was adopted without o
count. ....
The second resolution was adopted by vote Of
yeas 10. nays Co.
Mn. CLAnk, Of New York, asked for division
Of the fourth resolution ccnsurcd tho President of
tho United States and the Secretary of the Navy
unfortunately, ana he desired q seperate vote
upon ench lie thought every tair-mnded man
would nssent to IL.
The SPEAKER decided that the reso ution was
not divisible .. .t ....
Tho fourth resolution was adopted by the follow
ing vote:
Yeas 100, nays 6l
The question recurred on the last resolution,
when .r
AT half past four o'clock tho House took O recess
until seven o'clock, but at night the fifth and last
q snlu un nlnnIad