bill have its third reading now; and it was agreed

to.

Mr. JONES. I ask if the bill can be read now, unless it is first engrossed?

a

The SPEAKER. Upon what principle? It is new question to the Chair.

Mr. JONES. It has not been engrossed, and I ask the Chair if it can be read before it is engrossed? The order of the House is that the bill shall be engrossed, and read a third time.

Mr. HAVEN. I hope the gentleman from New York will withdraw his call for the previous question? I only desire to say one word on the subject of this bill.

Mr. JONES. I will withdraw it, if the gentleman promise to renew the call.

Mr. HAVEN. I do so.

I do not desire to answer any argument or suggestion that has been made here; but I simply desire to say to the House that I have examined this question with a little care, when we had debate up the other day on the other post office bill that was defeated in the House. The House will

recollect that I made a little ineffectual effort at that time to save the latter section of that bill. I thought then that I knew what I was about. I was of the opinion then that the latter sections of the bill were unobjectionable. I think that this bill now before the House is substantially the same in its character as the latter sections of that other bill were. I am entirely willing to see it passed. I think that the business portion of the country; I think that the remote and agricultural sections of the country; I think that every portion of our citizens will be satisfied with this bill.

I do not think that it is a matter of any great consequence or moment that this bill should pass. There are reasons, I think, why it should pass, but I do not believe it is of any great moment. It is a bill of which nobody will complain, unless it be the proprietors of newspapers of large circulation in our cities, as I think it increases the burdens on them a little. On this subject, however, the gentleman who has charge of the bill, and other members of the House, have more knowledge than I have.

But in other respects the bill is a proper one. The prepayment of postage, to which the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. JONES] objects as impracticable, I think he will see, on further consideration, is not so. If men have not postage stamps to affix to their letters, they may leave money for the purpose, and the postmaster can affix the stamps and forward the letters. As I said, I do not think that this is a matter of any great consequence, but still it is a bill which I should like to see passed. I now renew the call for the previous question.

The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered to be now put.

Mr: READY. I move to lay the bill upon the

table.

The motion was not agreed to.

The question was then taken upon Mr. WASHBURNE's amendment to the amendment; and it was rejected.

The question was then taken upon Mr. OLDS's amendment; and it was agreed to.

The question then being upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time, it was put; and decided in the affirmative.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. Is the bill engrossed?

The SPEAKER. The amendment is not engrossed.

[Cries of "Let it pass!"]

The SPEAKER. The bill or amendment is not engrossed; and if objection is made, it must go over until it is engrossed.

Mr. OLDS. In that case when will it come up The SPEAKER. The Chair will consider it. It is a new case.

Mr. OLDS. Is it not in order to have a time fixed when it shall have its third reading? The SPEAKER. It is. When shall the bill have its third reading?

[Cries of" Now!" "Now!"]

The question was put upon the motion that the

The SPEAKER. It is in order, but the Chair will suggest that the order of the House to read the bill to-day will keep it before the House.

Mr. HAVEN. I desire to understand the exact position of this bill if the House goes to the consideration of other business now.

The SPEAKER. The order of the House is, that the bill shall be read the third time to-day. The Chair does not know what the practice of this body has been in such cases; for no such case has ever been made upon him before since he has served here. The parliamentary law gives the House the right to fix the time at which a bill shall have its third reading; the House did order by a very large vote that it should be read to-day. The Chair decides that, if it should be engrossed any time during the session to-day, the order must be executed.

Mr. JONES. Well, sir, to avoid all difficulty, I will withdraw my objection.

The bill was then read a third time.

Mr. OLDS. I move the previous question upon the passage of the bill.

The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered to be put. Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. Idemand the yeas and nays upon the passage of the bill.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. CHANDLER. Although the call for the previous question has been seconded, I desire to propound a question to the chairman of the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, on the answer to which my vote will depend. The SPEAKER. That can only be done by unanimous consent. Is there objection? There was no objection.

Mr. CHANDLER. I would ask the chairman of the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads what is the effect of the bill on newspaper issues?

Mr. OLDS. It has no effect on newspaper issues whatever.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 104, nays 55; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Abercrombie, Aiken, James C. Allen; Willis Allen, Ashe, Banks, Barksdale, Barry, Belcher, Bridges, Brooks, Campbell, Carpenter, Caskie, Chastain, Clark, Cobb, Cook, Corwin, Curtis, John G. Davis, Dawson, De Witt, Dickinson, Dowdell, Eastman, Eddy, Edmundson, English, Faulkner, Fenton, Flagler, Florence, Franklin, Gamble, Goodrich, Green, Grow, Wiley P. Harris, Harrison, Hastings, Haven, Hendricks, Hillyer, Hughes, Johnson, Daniel T. Jones, J. Glancy Jones, Roland Jones, Kerr, Kittredge, Kurtz, Lamb, Latham, Lilly, Lindsley, McDougall, McMullin, McNair, Mace, Macy, Matteson, Maxwell, May, Middleswarth, Smith Miller, Morgan, Murray, Nichols, Norton, Olds, Andrew Oliver, Orr, Packer, Parker, Peck, Peckham, Phillips, Pratt, Richardson, Riddle, Robbins, Sabin, Sage, Seward, Shannon, Samuel A. Smith, William Smith, William R. Smith, Frederick P. Stanton, Richard H. Stanton, Hestor L. Stevens, David Stuart, John J. Taylor, Trout, Tweed, Vail, Vansant, Wade, Ellihu B. Washburne, Israel Washburn, Wells, John Wentworth, Wheeler, and Daniel B. Wright-104.

NAYS-Messrs. Appleton, Bell, Bennett, Benson, Caruthers, Chrisman, Churchwell, Clingman, Cox, Craige, Crocker, Cullom, Thomas Davis, Dean, Dick, John M. EI liott, Ellison, Etheridge, Everhart, Farley, Giddings, Greenwood, Aaron Harlan, Hiester, Houston, Howe, Hunt, George W. Jones, Keitt, Letcher, Lindley, McCulloch, John G.Miller, Millson, Morrison, Mordecai Oliver, Phelps, Preston, Pringle, Puryear, Ready, David Ritchie, Ruffin, Russell, Sapp, Shaw, Nathaniel G. Taylor, Tracy, Upham, Walley, Walsh, Tappan Wentworth, Yates, and Zollicof

fer-55.

say to the House that I was accidentally out of the House yesterday at the time of the final passage of the ten million bill. I was detained away on account of the storm; and as my vote will not change the result, I ask the consent of the House to have my vote recorded in favor of the bill. Mr. JONES, of New York. As the gentleman has accomplished all he wishes to accomplish, I object.

ADJOURNMENT SINE DIE.

Mr. ORR. Has the morning hour expired? The SPEAKER. It has.

Mr. ORR. Then I move that the House do now proceed to the consideration of the business upon the Speaker's table, so that we may take up and act on the resolution fixing the day of adjournment for this session.

[Cries of "Good!"]

The motion was agreed to.

The SPEAKER. The following is the resolution, as adopted by the House:

"Resolved, (the Senate concurring,) That the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives adjourn their respective Houses on Monday, August 14, at twelve o'clock, m."

The Senate amended by striking out all after the words "respective Houses," and inserting in lieu thereof, as follows:

"From twelve o'clock, m., July 17, until Monday, the 16th October next."

Mr. ORR. I move to substitute for the Senate amendment the following:

m.

Sine die on Monday, the 31st of July, at twelve o'clock,

Mr. SEWARD. I would inquire of the Chair whether, under the rules, an amendment is in or der to a Senate amendment? I believe after a bill has gone to the Senate, and been there amended, that when returned, that amendment is not amendable.

The SPEAKER. It is in order to amend the Senate amendment.

Mr. SEWARD. Then there is no end to legislation

Mr. ORR. Will the Clerk report the modification I have made since the resolution was sent up to the desk? It is the insertion of the words "at twelve o'clock, m.," so that the session will terminate at twelve o'clock.

sustained, will the vote be first upon the amendMr. PECKHAM. If the previous question is ment now offered by the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. ORR,] or will it be upon the

amendment of the Senate?

The SPEAKER. It will be first upon the amendment to the amendment of the Senate; or, in other words, upon the proposition of the gentleman from South Carolina. If that fails, then the vote will be upon the proposition of the Senate.

Mr. WALLEY. I rise to a question of order. I wish to ask the Chair whether, in his opinion, it is in order for the House to amend the proposition now returned from the Senate. The House adopted a resolution, and sent it to the Senate for their joint action. The Senate amended the action of the House, and sent it back here for the concurrence of this House. I ask the Chair if the question is not, Will the House concur, or not concur, in the amendment of the Senate ?

The SPEAKER. They can concur with or without amendment.

Mr. WALLEY. The gentleman from South Carolina proposes to strike out the whole action of the Senate, and therefore it will not be a con

currence.

The SPEAKER. It is germane to the amendment of the Senate.

Mr. WALLEY. But the resolution of the Senate proposes a recess.

The SPEAKER. A proposition which the gentleman proposes to strike out. The amendment of the Senate, it will be recollected, is to a resolution of the House, which proposed to adjourn sine die. The Senate proposed to take a recess. The Chair decides that the House may amend the amendment of the Senate. The

amendment of the gentleman from South Carolina is certainly in order.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Maine. I wish to inquire of the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. ÖRR,] whether he proposes to move the previous question immediately, and if so, to ask him if he will not give way for an amendment to the ori

ginal proposition, so that if he moves the previous question, and his amendment fails, we may act upon the amendment I desire to offer as well as upon the resolution of the Senate. The amendment I propose is to provide that the Senators and Representatives shall not be entitled to, and shall not receive, per diem during the recess."

Mr. ORR. It was my purpose before taking my seat to demand the previous question. I have no desire to preclude any motion being made with a view of obtaining the sense of the House as to the time we shall adjourn, or whether we shall have a recess. I am myself opposed to a recess. I believe that we can finish the necessary business of the country by the 31st of July-the day that has been indicated in the amendment I have offered. At the time when the original motion was made fixing the 14th of August as the day for adjournment, we had then before us the Pacific railroad bill, which promised to consume a great deal of time, and we also had before us a proposition to appropriate $10,000,000 to carry out the provisions of the late Mexican treaty. Those questions have now been disposed of, and looking back to the history of the previous legislation of the country, I think we may safely say that the appropriation bills may all be passed by the 31st of July, besides disposing of the business which may arise during the morning hour. I think it would not be safe for us to fix an earlier day for adjournment than| the 31st of July.

Mr. BOCOCK. If the gentleman from South Carolina will allow me, I desire to say a word or two on this subject.

Mr. ORR. Čertainly.

and I leave it for other gentlemen to take care of their own interests.

Mr. ORR. I have some bills in the disposition of which I feel an interest myself, as well as the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bocock] does in his. But

Mr. DISNEY, (interrupting.) Will the gentleman from South Carolina yield me the floor for a moment?

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I rise to a question of order: It is, that the gentleman from South Carolina cannot hold the floor and yield it to others in that way. There are a great many members here, I have no doubt, who wish to express their views on this subject. I hope, therefore, that the gentleman from South Carolina, when he has made his speech, will yield the floor, and give to gentlemen at the head of committees, and others who wish to express their views, an opportunity to do so.

be connected has an immense amount of business before it, and ready to be acted upon, important in its character. That business has reference, not only to railroad bills, but to matters connected with our public domain of a most important nature. These matters have been examined, and examined with care, and the committee are anxious to make their reports to the House. But it is manifest that this early adjournment has no reference whatever to anything but the passage of the appropriation bills.

I have an incident relating to this matter-and gentlemen will pardon me for referring to it. A gentleman upon this floor, the other day, announced to the House that, in his judgment, all the important business of the House could be transacted within the time indicated for the adjournment. The next day he called upon me to inquire in relation to a bill in which he was interested, which was under my charge, and which, in his judgment, is a bill of the utmost importance. I was compelled to say to him that it could not be reached. Yet he had stated to this House that there was time enough, before the day desig

Mr. JONES. Exactly; but it is not in order for him to yield it to others to make speeches. The SPEAKER. No; it is not in order to yield the floor for that purpose.

Mr. DISNEY. I ask the gentleman from South Carolina to yield me the floor for a personal explanation.

Mr. ORR. In a moment.

The appropriation bill proper may be disposed of even before the 31st of July. If the gentleman from Virginia wants but two days, and if he can reach his bill there will be ample time to have it considered. I have no doubt that much more than two days will be consumed in matters which I am free to say, are of much less importance than the bill which the gentleman from Virginia has in charge.

Now, as to the necessary business of the country, I am not one of those who believe that Con

Mr. BOCOCK. I desire, in the beginning, to ask the gentleman from South Carolina, if he has made his calculation as to the amount of business that can be done by the House by the 31st of July. I supposed when the amendment was offered by him that the day of adjournment had been fixed upon solely in relation to the passage of the appropriation bills. The gentleman, in the remarks which he has made since he rose, has let out that idea, has conveyed the intimation to the House that he thinks by the 31st of July the appropria-gress is serving the people most when they legislate tion bills can alone he passed, and that all other business must lie over, except, perhaps, such business as may be transacted in the morning hour. Now, I am as much in favor of an early adjournment as any member on this floor. I have voted for the proposition for an early adjournment whenever I thought there was a chance of our being able to transact the necessary business of the House. But I think we might as well adjourn in the beginning of the session as leave the necessary business of legislation undone. There is no virtue in an early adjournment which leaves the business of the country undone. I do not believe in appealing to the people on any such ground. I came here to participate in doing the business of the country, and I want to do it, and to do it as soon as possible, and when the business is done I want to go back to the people, and tell them that our duty is performed.

most. The great bane of our system of government, if there be any bane in it, is the tendency of all our legislative bodies to pass too many laws. Now, I think the business may be finished up by the day that I propose for adjournment. I think that my friend's naval bill may be disposed of before then. I think that the Army bill, which the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. FAULKNER] spoke of this morning, may be also disposed of. Mr. COBB. What about the railroad bills? Mr. ORR. I think that with a little caution on the part of the gentlemen having charge of the railroad bills, as the gentleman from Alabama desires my opinion as to them, they may be disposed of too. I think that in the morning hour we may pass all those bills that ought to be passed.

Mr. DISNEY. I, for one, sir, am exceedingly opposed to the agitation of the question of adjournment at this time, and I hope the House will look

Now, sir, there are various bills here to be dis-into and examine the amount of business pending posed of. I have charge of one, and I speak only for that one. I know, however, that there are various other bills of importance to be acted on. There is the bill for the reform of the Army, for instance. Then, I am sure there are bills to be acted on which the gentleman behind me [Mr. DISNEY] has in charge. There are still other bills to the disposition of which the country is looking forward, and in which the country feels an interest. But I have nothing to say about any of them for which I am not personally responsible.

I ask the gentleman from South Carolina, therefore, to give me two days for the bill which I have in charge, and which I think one of essential interest to the country. It is a bill which is calculated to confer great benefits upon our Republic. If the gentleman from South Carolina has fixed the 31st of July as the day for the adjournment of the House, in relation merely to the appropriation bills, I ask him to give me only two days for mine. Let him fix the day of adjournment as the 2d of August for the purpose of allowing the extra two days for the consideration of the bill on which the Committee on Naval Affairs has labored much this session, and which I want to have brought before the House and acted on in some shape or other, I ask that this time be given to me for the purpose I have indicated,

before it, and before its committees. The Committee on Public Lands is filled to repletion with matters of the most important character, intrusted to it for examination; matters involving the investigation of questions both of law and fact. But not only that committee, but the various other committees of this House have struggled for the floor for weeks and months, and each, and perhaps all of them with a large amount of business which they are exceedingly anxious to get before the House, and have been unable to do so.. No gentleman knows better than the gentleman from South Carolina, that if we go on and make this early adjournment, regardless of this amount of business, the effect will be that you will come here at the next short session, and pass only the necessary appropriation bills, and all this immense amount of matter will go over until the next Congress, which will be composed of a large number of new members, and the whole business which is now prepared, and ready to be acted upon, will have to be reinvestigated, and will again encumber our Calendar. It is in this way that matters continue before Congress year after year, and it is for this reason that we have matters upon our Calendar which have been before Congress for half a century.

The committee with which I have the honor to

ant business of the House.

Now, I beseech this House to reflect upon this matter, and not give way to their anxiety to get away from this warm weather, but really to sit down and examine the amount and character of the business before them.

In my opinion there is but one way to do, and that is to refer this matter to a committee of this House to examine into the amount and character of the business before the House. When they shall have done so, and the committee have reported, the House can act intelligently and understandingly upon the subject, and gentlemen will not be cut off from the consideration of matters in which they feel a personal interest. They sometimes forget themselves, and get up here and say that all the important business can be transacted, when there are matters in which they are interested, and which cannot possibly be reached before the early day indicated for adjournment.

But we cannot adjourn at that early day. Al this thing is ill advised. Let the matter be re- ferred to one of the committees of the House, and let them examine it before we undertake to fix a day for adjournment. If you adjourn at the time fixed in the amendment of the gentleman from South Carolina, you will sacrifice, to a vast extent, the interests of the country. It is wrong. I would like to have the matter examined by a committee, and I hope it will be referred.

Mr. ORR. The committee will perhaps pardon me for one moment more. I have no objection to my friend from New York manifesting a disposition to pass upon all the business of the House; but my friend has been here long enough to know that if we were to sit here from now until the first of December, we should not dispose of the private claims alone which encumber the Calendars of Congress. As for disposing of all the business which has been brought before the Committee on Public Lands, and which has been, or will be, reported back by them for the action of the House, that alone, if properly examined, would occupy the time of the House for three months, So that it is useless to talk of disposing of all the business before the House.

We are already approaching the middle of summer. Most of us have been absent from our homes for more than seven months. The hot weather is upon us; we know that a disease is approaching us from all sides; and suppose it should make its appearance here, I ask whether we should be able to keep the House together? Should we not at once find ourselves without a quorum? Is it not important that we should pass the necessary appropriation bills and go home? Then, when we come back in December, let us go to work and not adjourn over from Thursday to Monday, as we are in the habit of doing. If the naval bill under the charge of my friend from Virginia [Mr. Bocock] is not disposed of during the present session, let us then take it up and dispose of it. We could have disposed of that and of the Pacific railroad bill in the time we have lost by adjournment over during the present session. We may dispose of them, and of a considerable amount of private business, in the month of December.

But if gentlemen expect to dispose of all the business that has been referred to the standing

Walsh, Ellihu B. Washburne, Israel Washburn, Wells, John Wentworth, Tappan Wentworth, Yates, and Zolli coffer-132.

So the House refused to lay the subject on the table.

The question recurred on the amendment of the Senate.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I call for the yeas and nays on the question.

The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. PHILLIPS. I desire to ask a question of the Chair. Is the question now on concurring with the Senate's amendment to the resolution of the House?

The SPEAKER. That is the question. Mr. PHILLIPS. And the refusal, therefore, to concur with the amendment of the Senate, will leave the resolution of the House as it was originally adopted?

The SPEAKER. Yes.

Mr. HOUSTON. And secure a conference

Committee?

The SPEAKER. That will be the effect of such a vote on the part of the House.

The question was then taken; and it was decided in the negative-yeas 71, nays 105; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Abercrombie, Appleton, Bennett, Campbell, Caruthers, Cook, Corwin, Crocker, Cullom, Curtis, Thomas Davis, De Witt, Dick, Dickinson, Thomas D. Eliot, Everhart, Flagler, Franklin, Gamble, Giddings, Goodrich, Aaron Harlan, Harrison, Haven, Hiester, Hillyer, Howe, Kerr, Kittredge, Knox, Latham, Lindley, McCullochi, Mace, Matteson, Mayall, Middleswarth, Morgan, Norton, Mordecai Oliver, Packer, Parker, Peck, Peckham, Pennington, Bishop Perkins, Pringle, Ready, Reese, David Ritchie, Rowe, Russell, Sabin, Sage, Sapp, Seward, Frederick P. Stanton, Richard H. Stanton, Nathaniel G. Taylor, Thurston, Tracy, Trout, Tweed, Upham, Wade, Walley, Ellihu B. Washburne, John Wentworth, Tappan Wentworth, and Yates-71.

NAYS-Messrs. Aiken, James C. Allen, Willis Allen, Ashe, David J. Bailey,Thomas H. Bayly, Barksdale, Barry, Belcher, Bell, Benson, Benton, Breckinridge, Bridges, Brooks, Carpenter, Caskie, Chandler, Chastain, Chrisman, Churchwell, Clark, Clingman, Cobb, Craige, Cox, John G. Davis, Dawson, Dean, Disney, Dowdell, Eastman, Eddy, John M. Elliott, Ellison, English, Etheridge, Ewing, Farley, Faulkner, Fenton, Florence, Goode, Green, Greenwood, Wiley P. Harris, Hastings, Hendricks, Henn, Hill, Houston, Hughes, Hunt, Ingersoll, Johnson, Daniel T. Jones, George W. Jones, J. Glancy Jones, Roland Jones, Keitt, Kurtz, Lamb, Letcher, Lilly, Lindsley, McMullin, McNair, Macy, Maxwell, May, John G. Miller, Smith Miller, Millson, Morrison, Murray, Nichols, Andrew Oliver, Orr, John Perkins, Phelps, Phillips, Powell, Riddle, Thomas Kitchey, Robbins, Ruffin, Shannon, Shaw, Gerrit Smith, William Smith, William R. Smith, George W. Smyth, Alexander H. Stephens, Hestor L. Stevens, David Stuart, John J. Taylor, John L. Taylor, Vail, Vansant, Walker, Walsh, Israel Washburn, Wheeler, Daniel B. Wright, and Zollicoffer-105.

Mr. GREENWOOD. I propose that the House appoint a committee of conference to confer with a like committee of the Senate.

The SPEAKER. That would not be regular. The action of the House will be reported to the Senate, and it will be for that body to determine on the course to be taken in regard to it.

Mr: HOUSTON. It is hardly worth while for us to travel over all this ground again. We will probably have a conference about this matter to agree to some time for the adjournment of Congress. If the House will agree to do so, I would like to go into committee this evening, and take up either the civil and diplomatic appropriation bill, or

[Cries of "Oh, no; oh, no."]

Mr. BAYLY, of Virginia. I rise to a privileged question. I move to reconsider the vote by which the message of the President of the United States, which was laid before the House, by the Speaker, a few moments since, was referred to the Committee on Commerce. Upon looking at the papers, I am confident that they ought to go to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

The question was put upon Mr. BAYLY'S motion; and it was agreed to; and then, by unanimous consent, the message and accompanying papers were referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

On motion of Mr. HOUSTON, (at three o'clock and thirty minutes) the House adjourned until

to-morrow.

IN SENATE. FRIDAY, June 30, 1854. Prayer by Rev. HENRY SLICER.

lying over for many weeks, and I should like to have it taken up, and disposed of this morning. The PRESIDENT. That being a private bill on the Calendar, the motion of the Senator is in order..

Mr. GWIN. I move to take up for consideration the motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.

Mr.CHASE. The Senator from Indiana is not in his seat, and I should like to inquire of the Senator from California if he has conversed with him on the subject?

I

Mr. GWIN. When I attempted to call up this matter at a former day, it was stated that the Senator from Indiana wished to discuss the question. subsequently saw him, and he told me he had nothing to say on it, but that he had moved the reconsideration of the motion for the Senator from Delaware, [Mr. BAYARD,] and that he had no objection to its coming up at any time, whether he was present or not.

Mr. BAYARD. It is perfectly immaterial to me whether the bill is taken up and acted upon now or at any other time; for in such weather as this is I am not going to speak on it. I have looked into the facts, and I have conversed with some Senators in reference to it. My own mind is clear, on examination, that there is no shadow of claim in the case. After looking at all the material papers I cannot realize on what ground the report was ever based. I am perfectly willing, however, to take the vote, if gentlemen have made up their minds on their own investigation. I am not going, in this weather, to discuss questions of this kind.

The motion of Mr. GWIN was agreed to; and the question being upon agreeing to the motion to

HEALTH OF IMMIGRANTS.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore, by unanimous consent, it being private bill day, laid before the Senate a message from the President of the United States, transmitting copies of two communications of the 26th ultimo and 4th instant, from her Britannic Majesty's Minister accredited to the Government of the United States, to the Secretary of State, relative to the health on shipboard of immigrants from foreign countries to the United States; which was referred to the select committee appointed to inquire into the subject, and ordered to be printed.

REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES.

ment of the Senate.

Mr. FLORENCE moved to reconsider the vote just taken by which the Senate's amendment was non-concurred in, and also that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table; which latter motion was agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT. A message was received from the President of the United States, by the hands of SIDNEY WEBSTER, Esq., his Private Secretary, transmitting to Congress copies of two communications of the 25th ultimo, and the 4th instant, respectively, from Her Britannic Majesty's Minister accredited to this Government, to the Secretary of State, relative to the health on shipboard of emigrants from foreign countries to the United States. This was the subject of the President's message to Congress of the 27th of April last.

On motion by Mr. BAYLY, of Virginia, the message and accompanying documents were referred to the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.

A message was received from the Senate, by the hands of ASBURY DICKINS, Esq., its Secretary, apprising the House that the Senate had agreed, among others, to the following bill:

Bill of the House (No. 405) to enable the President of the United States to execute the third article of the recent treaty with Mexico.

RECESS OF CONGRESS.

The SPEAKER. The business next in order is the consideration of the following joint resolution:

Joint resolution providing for a recess from the first Monday in July to the third Monday in October.

failure of the agents of the Government to comply with the terms of a contract with him for the transportation of certain commissary's stores from Valparaiso to Benicia, submitted a report, accompanied by a bill for his relief; which was read, and passed to a second reading. The report was ordered to be printed.

Mr. PETTIT, from the Committee on Private Land Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Gaston T. Raoul, praying permission to enter a section of land under a certificate duly issued by the register and receiver of the Greensburg land district of Louisiana, submitted a report, accompanied by a bill for his relief; which was read, and passed to a second reading. The report was ordered to be printed.

RECONSIDERATION OF A VOTE.

Mr. CLAYTON. Mr. President, I yesterday offered a resolution calling on the State Department for information in regard to the proposition for the interchange of breadstuffs between Canada and the United States. I made search before I offered the resolution, and I found none of the papers which I wished to call out. Since the resolution was adopted, however, I have discovered by the aid of one of the clerks, that the greater part of the information was communicated at a former day, and as that answers the purpose I had in view, I move to reconsider the vote adopting the resolution, in order that it may lie on the table. The motion to reconsider was agreed to; and the resolution was ordered to lie on the table.

DAVID MYERLE.

Mr. GWIN. A bill was passed by the Senate some weeks since for the relief of David Myerle. A reconsideration was moved by the Senator from Indiana, [Mr. BRIGHT:] That question has been

Mr. BAYARD called for the yeas and nays; which were ordered; and being taken, resulted -yeas 19, nays 17; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Adams, Allen, Atchison, Bayard, Bright, Brodbead, Chase, Clay, Clayton, Dodge of Wisconsin, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Hamlin, Hunter, Mason, Slidell, Stuart, Toucey, and Williams-19.

NAYS-Messrs. Badger, Bell, Brown, Fessenden, Fish, Geyer, Gillette, Gwin, James, Jones of Tennessee, Mallory, Norris, Pettit, Rockwell, Seward, Wade, and Weller--17. So the motion to reconsider was agreed to. The PRESIDENT. The question now is, "Shall the bill pass?"

Mr. CLAY called for the yeas and nays; and they were ordered.

The bill proposes to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to David Myerle $30,000 for losses, sacrifices, and expenses incurred by him in testing and establishing the practicability and safety of the process of water-rotting hemp, under the direction of the Navy Department.

Mr. EVANS. As I do not intend to vote now in the same way that I did when this bill was before the Senate on a former occasion, I beg leave to say merely that since it was then under consideration have looked more minutely into the claim than I did before, and I am satisfied that this man is entitled to something. My only difficulty is that the bill allows him, perhaps, a little more than he ought to have; but, rather than not pay him anything, I have made up my mind to vote for the bill.

Mr. BRIGHT. Mr. President, as this bill was returned from the House on my motion, it is proper that I should state the reasons that governed me in making the motion. When the bill was under the consideration of the Senate, I voted first for the amendment to reduce the amount to

$10,000. That proposition was voted down, and then I had presented to me the question whether I should vote for the bill as it stood appropriating $30,000, or should give the claimant nothing? I thought, under all the circumstances, that it would be proper to give him the $30,000. But my reason for moving the reconsideration, and asking for the return of the bill from the House was, that the honorable Senator from Delaware, soon after the could satisfy the Senate, if an opportunity was passage of the bill, expressed the opinion that he given him, that this was an unjust claim.

Mr. BAYARD. Will the honorable Senator allow me to correct his statement? Mr. BRIGHT. Certainly.

Mr. BAYARD. I certainly made no allegation of that kind. The honorable Senator misunderstood me. I told him I thought I could satisfy him as to his own individual vote, but I did not

purpose to enter into the discussion of the matter before the Senate. I said afterwards that I should be willing to submit my views to the Senate, but in weather such as this is, I cannot undertake to do it.

Mr. BRIGHT. I made the motion, as I supposed, for the accommodation of the Senator from Delaware, to give him an opportunity of showing the Senate that this bill was without foundation, and that the claimant was not entitled to any part of the amount proposed to be appropriated. I was prepared, if he had satisfied me of that fact, to vote against the bill. Certainly, I supposed, at the time I made the motion, and insisted upon the return of the bill, that the honorable Senator would avail himself of the opportunity afforded, and explain to the Senate the reason why he made the declaration that he did.

In the absence of any effort of that kind on his part, I feel authorized to vote for the bill, or rather I feel bound to move an amendment to appropriate $10,000 instead of $30,000. I believe, under the circumstances, that the claimant is entitled to something, but I do not believe that he is entitled to $30,000. I do not think that the proof in the case establishes the fact that he has expended that amount. I think that he was induced by a late Secretary of the Navy to make an expenditure in carrying on an experiment for the benefit of the Government, and that the impression was created upon his mind-I think the testimony warrants the conclusion that if the experiment failed, and money was lost, it should be compensated for out of the public Treasury, and not out of his pocket. If I believed that the proof justified an appropriation of $30,000, I should not, under the circumstances, oppose it; but I do not think-and I have given the case, I may say, a careful examinationthat an amount exceeding $15,000 ought to be appropriated; and as suggested by Senators around me, I will submit a motion that the bill be so amended as to appropriate $15,000.

Mr. BAYARD. 1 regret that the honorable Senator from Indiana misunderstood my conversation with him. It was purely personal. It had no relation to his action in the Senate. My experience here has convinced me that it is a very idle effort indeed to attempt to discuss before this body any question connected with a private claim, adverse to that claim. You speak to empty benches. That is not agreeable to me; but 1 should be willing to do it if I thought it would have any effect. My own experience is that it has no effect. I believe a system as corrupt and corrupting, as I consider the mode in which private bills are passed, to be, can be checked in two ways. One is, either by opposition to the individual cases, or, when you find the system has so far obtained a headway that opposition is useless, to let it go on, and it will become so odious, and so openly profligate, that the public sense of the country will utterly reject it. I have come to the conclusion, with the exception of those cases committed to me as a member of a committee to examine, that I do not mean to trouble myself with them, except as regards what is necessary for my own investigation, and vote in reference to the question before the Senate.

Mr. PETTIT. Mr. President, I hope the amendment proposed by my colleague will not prevail.

Mr. BADGER. I will suggest that the amendment is not in order.

The PRESIDENT. The bill is not now in a condition to be amended. The question is, "Shall the bill pass?" and no amendment can be proposed unless by unanimous consent, or unless the vote by which it was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, be reconsidered.

Mr. PETTIT. Then I have a few remarks to make in regard to the bill. Years ago, while a member of the other House, I investigated this question. I then settled down in the clear conviction that the Government of the United States had injured this man, had done him a gross wrong. That $30,000 will not indemnify him, I am clearly of opinion. In addition to this, allow me to say that this matter, when we were both members of the other House, was especially in the care and charge and keeping of my immediate predecessor in the Senate, Hon. Charles W. Cathcart, who held a seat here a year ago last winter, by an appointment by the Governor, before I came on. I take occasion to say that there is no purer or better man

in the country than that Mr. Cathcart. I take occasion further to say that there are very few minds possessed of more capacity to investigate and come to a right conclusion than his. I know that in the House, after full examination, he entertained no doubt of the justice and propriety of this appropriation. I know that it again came under his consideration, the short time, some six or seven weeks, during which he held his seat as my predecessor here. He investigated it again, and came to the same conclusion. I hold in my hand a letter from him, and ask the indulgence of the Senate while I read one clause from it. It is dated May 15, 1854:

"I bespeak your kind attention to his (Myerle's) case, assuring you that you will thereby be rendering an act of justice to a much injured and unfortunate man." CHARLES W. CATHCART.

Yours, truly,

That is what he says in regard to this matter. I shall not take up the time of the Senate by referring to all the papers and the evidence in reference to the claim; but there is nothing that has impressed itself so clearly on my mind as that the Government, through its officers, has injured this man, and that $30,000 will not repay him for his loss. I cannot, therefore, believe, when I am sent here to do justice between the mass of the people, the Government-for they are the Governmentand the individual members of that society, that I should vote for a less sum than $30,000, and I shall with great pleasure vote for that.

Mr. WELLER. I have but a word or two to say in regard to this claim. It is very seldom that I put myself to the trouble of investigating any of these private claims, unless they are referred to me as a member of a committee; but some years ago I did give myself the trouble to investigate this one. I have since read the testimony again; and I do regard it as one of the most just and equitable claims that has ever been presented to the Government. Whether that will secure its passage through Congress or not is a different question; because my experience as a legislator is, that unjust and iniquitous measures are much more apt to pass than a just and equitable one. But I assure the Senate, if they would take the trouble to investigate the merits of this claim, they would be satisfied that Mr. Myerle has sustained damage, in consequence of the contract made by a late Secretary of the Navy, to an amount far greater than $30,000. I have never known of a private claim presented here, for which it would afford me so much pleasure to vote, as for this bill as it now stands.

Mr. MALLORY. Mr. President, when I first came to the Senate, I found the claim of David Myerle referred to the committee of which I was a member. I investigated it, as I thought, fully, and read the arguments which had been adduced against it in the House. I came to the conclusion that it ought not to be allowed. I entertained that opinion throughout the last session, and should have voted against it if it had come to a vote then. The claim would have passed on one of the last nights of the session, when it was brought forward by the honorable Senator from North Carolina, [Mr. BADGER,] who advocated it; but at that moment the Senator from Kentucky, not now a member of the Senate, [Mr. Underwood,] exposed to us a large pile of papers, to listen to the reading of which would have occupied hours. The Senator from North Carolina at once withdrew the claim. I saw that he had investigated it, and had come to the conclusion that it was a just one. It induced me, during the present session, to give it a more thorough examination. I believe I have examined every proof that has been produced on the subject, and I have come to the conclusion that it is a very just claim, and ought to be paid. I have regarded Mr. Myerle, as I think the Senate must regard him, not as an ordinary contractor who, failing in the precise stipulation of his contract, is not to be paid, but as a special agent of the Government, employed to develop by experiment the great resources of the country for the uses of the Navy; and in doing so I am convinced that he has saved to this Government in the matter of water-rotted hemp, millions of dollars, whilst he has impoverished himself. We have the testimony of the Secretary of the Navy under whose direction it was done. His declaration is unequivocal; and I hardly think any man could investigate the claim without coming to the conclusion that Mr. Myerle sustained a loss-I

will not say of $30,000, because when a man confers this amount of benefit on the country, I should hardly feel at liberty to quibble for a few dollars-but as the committee has reported $30,000 I am willing to vote for that amount.

Mr. BAYARD. I do not intend to go into a lengthy discussion of the merits of this claim; but I must say a few words in reply to the honorable Senator from Florida. He does not advance the general idea which seems to prevail, that this claim must rest upon the ground that the Government made a contract with Myerle, and failing to perform the contract on its part, that he is entitled to damages, which would of course be the profit which would have been made by the contract, if he had performed it. That is not the ground on which it is put by the committee, though it is in some measure thrown into it, and it is not the ground upon which the honorable Senator from Florida puts it.

The honorable Senator evidently considers Mr. Myerle as a special agent of the Government, employed for the purpose of introducing water-rotted hemp for the benefit of the Navy of the United States. Sir, if that were the ground upon which it is put, it would be to me a sufficient objection to the claim, because I know of no authority, nor shall I be willing to sanction the act, upon the part of an Executive officer, to assume legislative powers, and undertake, upon the idea that any particular manufacture, or any particular project, or any view of his own, would be beneficial to the country, to transcend his powers, and to appoint special agents without authority of law.

I should not consider that these special agents had any claim on this Government for remuneration, whether the project succeeded or failed, because the doctrine would be a very dangerous one. It is very certain, on an examination of the papers in this case, that all Mr. Paulding supposed he had a right to do, was to apply to Congress for authority, in making a contract with David Myerle, to go beyond the ordinary routine of contracts, and make an advance of twenty-five per cent. before the work to be performed was done. That was done with a view of encouragement. A bill passed the Senate, but failed in the House, and he, therefore, had not even that authority. Did he pretend, or did the papers show that he pretended to appoint him a special agent? No, he made a contract with him for a certain amount of water-rotted hemp. How, then, can he raise a claim against the United States Government, founded on the idea of his appointment as a special agent, which would have been a gross violation of duty on the part of the Executive officer? He would have been sanctioning an act which I should be very unwilling to sanction in reference to the course of the Executive officer of this Govment. It is in that mode that all abuses come in.

Into the subject of the contract I shall not enter; nor shall I allude to the other objections which I have to this claim. Other Senators have expressed their opinions; suffice it to say that I shall express mine.

After examining the case, certainly with no prejudice against the party, with entire ignorance of him individually, and after hearing the report of the committee read, it struck me that it was confused, and that it placed the claim on no known principle. Subsequently to its passage, and when the reconsideration was moved, I examined the papers, and I confess the conclusion I arrived at was, that, as far as the Government is concerned, there is no shadow of a claim upon it in favor of Mr. Myerle; and, further, it left a doubt in my mind whether he was or was not actually an injured man, or rather whether his pecuniary affairs had been injured by the transactions into which he entered.

There is no specific proof of the extent of property which he possessed, although there is no doubt that he failed in the business in which he embarked. But when the adverse opinions of Senators, some of them not now here, are expressed, their convictions in reference to the claim, allow me to say, must have some weight with me. According to your opinions, Mr. President, derived from your constituents in the State of Missouri, when you first presented a bill in regard to this claim in the Senate, as I understood, in your State, the presentation of the claim was universally condeinned, and denounced as one in which there was no merit.

Mr. PETTIT. I would like to refer the Sen