Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1860-01-04

House, sRas rejected by that gentleman and his
friends, but two members of the Republican party
voting in favor of it, and the gentleman from Penn.
and the present candidate of the other side Tor
Speaker, voting against it! The bill then stood e.
iected The Democratic side of the House, anSlSu
to make provision for the support of the Govern
ment and for the relief of the mail Contractors OF
the country, moved reconsideration of I'D bill; 1t
was brought before the q use by reconsideration
and the House again voted on it. And. 81 upon
that second vote-theiAi being still witHpht any
amendment from the Senate, for it had never been
to the Senate gentleman from Pennsylvania
the Republ Dan candidate for Speaker at this time,
and the whole body of the Republican party, with
out seven exceptions, again voted against the pass
age of the bill They voted against it the Second
time after it had been announced that having been
once reconsdered another motion toreconsider would
not be in order, and that if rejected then, it would
have to- stand rejected altogether. All this, Mr.
Clerk, occurred before The bill had been to the Sen
ate. If the object of tie gentleman from Pennsy-
vania was to prevent the Senate from encroaching
upon the prerogatves of the House-if that was his
sole object in having his resolution passed-what
reason can he give to the mail contractors of the
country for having voted against the bill twice be-
fore the Senate amendment had been put upon It?
Now, think am iustifable, in the face of these
facts in saying that the design which the gentlen
had in view was to kill the BILL and that the motive
and the object that he had to compel the PSes-
dent to call Congress together shortly after e. Eth
of March. Why, who of those of us who were
here in the last Congress- and were in this Hall on
the last night of the session, has forgotten with
what frantic vebemence when conference commit
tee applied for by the Senate and was about to
be appointed. the gentleman from Pennsylvania got
up and resisted it. until he had an assurance that
the bill itself could not go to the committee? So
much he afraid that the committee of conference
would agree upon some bill that could pass and be-
come law and that the cherished object of himself
and his friends to have extra session would thus
be defeated that he stood here just before daybres
on the 4th of March last and resisted to the very
mttermost allowing the committee of conference to
have possession of the bill.
Now, I say-and think I am iustiiable in say
Fng-that the most surprising thing have witness
ed this floor is the attempt of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania to hold this side of the House respon-
Sibe for the defeat of that BILL when the records of
he country show that he himself is responsible for
is defeat and that he and his party are alone re-
ponsible now to the country and to the mail con-
FACTORS for the failure of the Government to meet
is obligations.
Nor is this, sir, all the proof We all remember
hat when they had succeeded in defeating the BILL
nd they knew full we'll that their course would de-
at it. and the President undertook to carry on the
'eti tuetlt Witnout calling congress tOSeIner-naS
ny gentleman in this House forgotten how they de-
ounced the Postmaster General. the President, and
ne whole administration, for issuing certificates,
hat method having been resorted to as means
f relieving the mail contractors from the conse-
uences of the act of the gentleman from Pennsyl-
ania and his friends? They denounced the Presi-
ent and everybody connected with the administra-
ION as being guilty of usurpation of power, and
collation. of law. because in their anxiety to relieve
ne mail contractors from the danger and embarrass-
,ent which the gentleman from Pennsylvania hid
brought upon Them they were endeavoring to issue
certificates under which the mail contractors night
raise money.
I conclude, Mr.. Clerk, with repetition of my
question to the gentleman from Pennsylvania; and
hope he will answer it before the House. and to
he satisfaction of the country: if his move in de-
.atins that bill was to prevent the S:nate from
surping part of the prerogatives of this House,
rhy it that he voted against the Dill twice be-
I ! re the amendment of the Senate had ever BEEN
/ / ut upon it?
return my thanks to the gentleman from. Xip(
mia for his courtesy in affordingme an opportun.
y of submitting these remarks.