The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1871-12-25

nroyides for the removal Oh titse aio"o. -.
'They are entirely equivalent phfases, anu 90. ON
equivalent vote is required in each case-Imv
thirds-so that there is preclseiy INC s', .i
reason for holding that the assem- ~, VI a,n
president Is not necessary TO Din relno, . us
disabilities that there Is to the argument .:l..
Il Is not necessary In respect 10 propUFsl:t.o,,
TO amend the Constitution oil Inc ohi'eu
Mr.. POMEROY Does the Senator Say
that If this bill passes it does not go " 'h'
President? ~. h,,t
Mr.. THURMAN: say it need not; pu'
T do not want to take up time Win ,ilaE.
Mr.. POMEROY: 1t must go TO the fleSi-
dent: there is no doubt about that.
Mr.. THURMAN: / say 1t need not, anu D.
saw he has no power over it to veto IL. Dun Dun
I do not care how that matter IS; as J. ssilu
before, that does not determine 'his qucs.
ton. ] think, however, that the very same
reason which has settled the question tl'aI
resolution to amend the CONSTITUTION uoes
not rro 70 the President settles the question
that this bill does not; but 40 not "ailI W
take I'D time with that point.
I come back to my proposition; ana must
restate If. because these interruptions nave
diverted the attention of senators. Ii there
Wore a rule of the Senate requiring that
amendments should be gcrmane to the Dill TO
which they were offered it would be admit
ted at once that the amendment OF the sella-
for from Massachusetts was not lii order.
Now. nv argument is that the Constitution
makes the rule that the amendment must be
rcrmane to the bill in the two cases-hrst, IN
fhc case of a proposition to amend the Constl-
tuition of the United States; and secondly, III
repard to a disability bill under the Jour
tccnth amendment. do not controvert any
principle of parliamentary law, but 1 say
your Constitution, which is the highest law,
requires, by any fair Interpretation ana con-
strlction of it, that an amendment TO tillS
bill shall be sscrmane to the bill; ana there-
fore it is no Use to quote parliamentary law.
Now. Mr.. President, letmc put question,
and see if that is not the sound sense OF the
thing. Suppose the amendment of the Sen,
ator from Massachusetts, were adopted, ana
this bill should pass by majority vote hl't
less than two-thirds, and should go to the
President of the United States and be ap-
proved hy him. would it be a law: And II
so. how much of it would be a law? Mani
fcstlv. the disability part of it would not be
law. because it would not have received two
thirds but who shall say that the rest Of II,
that which required only majority vote,
would not he law, having received ma
iority of both branches Of Congress and the
sirnitlIre of the President of the United
States? Does not this show how com
pletcly absurd it would he to admit an
Of this kind, when, il you passed
il and sent it to the President the amend
ment might become q law by his signature,
while the corpus of the bill upon which it
was cn.raftcd could not be a law, because it
had not received Il two-tllirds vote in Con-
grcSs?
Mr.. CONKLING: Will my friend allow
me?
Mr.. THURMAN: would prefer to 60 on.
Mr.. CONKLlNG: l am really asking i'll
formation, and I wish to he brief. I ask now
as testing this question. the Senator's attcn-
ton to this provision Of the Constitution:
"No title of nobility shall be granted by
the United States; and no person holding
any office of profit or trust under them shall,
without the consent Of the Congress, accept
of any present. cmolumcnt, office, or title of
any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or
foreign State"
ask the Senator whether that provision
of the Constitution does not demand law,
an act of Congress; and if it does. Task him to
distinguish between that case and this.
Mr.. THURMAN: / am going to answer
what is the law presently. You cannot pass
a resolution to adjourn that is not law.
Mr.. CONkLING: But my honorable
friend docs not understand my question, or
else he does not choose to answer it.
Mr.. THURMAN: l do choose to answer
it; but prefer to take my own time.
Mr.. CONKLING: My question is, whether
that provision of the Constitution implies that
Congress by Il Mw-and thereby l mean an
act that is signed by the Presidents to give
its consent; because have right here i'll the
statutes, will say to the Senator, the form in
which that always has been done by act OF
Congress signed by the President.
Mr.. THURMAN: The Senator is deter
mined that l shall not answer in my own
time. l shall answer that whole question
when | come to reply to the proposition Of
the Senator from Vermont. ] have got it
down orderly on my brief, and l beg my
friend to allow me to follow it.
I have given my first answer in regard to
the parliamentary law, that the Constitution
makes the parliamentary law here, and re-
quircs, with more strength than any mere
rule of the Senate could do, that the amend
mcnt shall be ger1nanc to the bill. 1t is not
necessary for me to gainsay the proposition
nut hy the Senator from Vermont by way OF
lustration-namey, could you not move to
strike out all of this bill after the words "Be
it enacted" and insert a bill upon any other
subject? / admit, very frankly, that you
could. Why so? Because then you strike
out all the bill; and if you strike out all the
bill and insert another bill Of ordinary legiS-
lation there is no trouble about it.
Mr.. EDNIUNDS: Then, may I ask my
friend question right there?
Dir. THURMAN have no objection.
Nh. EDAiUNDS: If that be so, on the
theory OF my friend from Ohio, I should like
to ask him what place the second section al
ready in this bill, that he is SO anxious to
pass, has there?
Mr.. THURMAN: / am going to answer
about that second section. | have that on
my brief; but "suttcient unto the day is the
evil thereof"
Mr.. EDMUNDS: 1t must all be to-day;
let us take it now.
Mr.. THURMAN: / know it must be to-
day, because we begin to vote at I O'Clock.
You may strike out the whole bill after the
enacting clause, i think, and insert an appro-
priation bill, ii you see tit to do so; but you
cannot leave it a disability bill and put on to
it piece of ordinary legislation. You shall
not mend old garments with new cloth, nor
put new wine into old bottles.
Mr.. EDMUNDS: That is done every day.
[Laughter.]
Mr.. THURMAN: That shall not be done.
Sufficient, then, for that. Now come to the
question put by my friend from Vermont ;
aud I shall answer my friend from New York
in answering that.
The Senator from Vermont asks will not
this bill be a law il it passes? Certainly it
will be law if it passes. What Is law !!
W. al 1-,n,,, ,rho nnr 1.e1nnmhar lack to OLE