eady been enold, by natural decreases their t is, to be regules for making e people, whose mewhat to their that nominal he value of any their actual inhich is not now ins.

told if we will ll soon regulate I soon return to I think those but little heeded ttle attended to y have but little duced the diffiI continues, and ontinue with an s I have before old. The value unlimited, is in to produce and e labor required modities which

ings existing in he effect of the produce gold is tity necessarily commodity proquantity which other pursuits. pursuits did not gold which that aising the gold withdrawn from I to raising the abor is required the discovery of ed to its producincreased, and other articles, these new mines supply of gold before their dist pace with that the present relald not be maincome. The evil Il continue and from the supply every prospect, ng in an increas-hat have we to Nothing, exeaper from the ctions of which which has consome little imnery with which ed and worked. evil remedying ed.

st this proposed ard of currency come attached to tely insist upon ring the reasons ty of their conbe obtained by h is not as well, single standard, there are very m it, as the exas attempted to onstant, though tive values of the

To return to the question, I repeat, sir, we propose to impose a charge or seigniorage upon the coinage of gold and silver, to cover the actual expense of the coinage, instead of defraying that exMr. FREEMAN. As the gentleman designs pense, as heretofore, out of the public Treasury. putting this bill on its passage by calling for the This is a very important provision, and notwithprevious question, I desire to propound an inquiry standing the gentleman tells me there was at the to him. I consider any change in the metallic last session a vote of fifty only in favor of it, I currency of the country would interfere greatly trust gentlemen will give it their careful considwith the interests of the people. Now, the generation, and that it will in consequence meet with tleman has stated that gold is now the standard of much more favor at this time. What do we provalue in this country, and that silver was much pose? more valuable than gold, and, therefore, I take it, not the standard of value.

Mr. BROOKS. Let me correct the gentleman
in point of fact. He proposes to levy only the
Mr DUNHAM. Yes, sir; precisely.
actual expenses of the coinage. The amount of
Mr. FREEMAN. But in order to bring silver coinage at the Philadelphia Mint
last year,
down to the standard of value, he proposes to de-about $50,000,000. One half of one per cent. seign-
forage $250,000

great inconvenien renvy Every
to the people. member of the House will see that that is a very
dard of a single important change, and one the people of this coun-
I eminently suc- try will not willingly submit to. The question of
ossible that you
a change in the value of existing American coin,
ouble standard. is not one, however much it may be discussed in
te in value when this House, which has been assented to by the
then command voice of the people of the United States. I hope
hat other; when
the gentleman will not undertake to cut off dis-
comes merchan-
cussion on this subject. However well-informed
mey at its nom- he may be, he should recollect that there are infe-

SESS.

he has taken the approPhiladelphia alone as the ole Mint establishmentand all the branches. In of seigniorage, I propose inage is, its object, and much of the opposition ge of seigniorage results er understanding of the Fects of coining. Coining he value of the currency. e of the metals into pieces size, and marking upon y and quantity. For inAmerican silver dollar, upon it that it has been y the proper officers, and ndred and twelve and a e tenths fine. When we ow in the same way that nd eight tenths grains of s of silver, (nine tenths.) lue, but it simply marks the convenience of those ceive or pay it, and saves ng to examine its quality, its quantity. The value market, and it is paid and

lity and quantity of metal parties do not themselves ate the quantity and finenich are to be paid and realways do, but stipulate of the coins, the law supiming that the parties muw, made it a part of their e quality and quantity of the stipulated name and s, when one agrees to pay a hundred dollars, the full as construed by the law, the number of grains of egal standard (nine tenths undred dollars. This beto pay the expense of the acture? Should not those t, and in proportion to the Will any gentleman tell me eceives and pays out one coin in the course of a year d perhaps more of the exhis Mint than the one who and or ten millions? And e so long as we raise our d the expense of the Mint sury. If we charge upon re sufficient to defray that e who have the benefit of e expenses of it.

allion into coin, into a form onveniently use, it is just as if you had manufactured who has the benefit of the y the expenses in one case F. When the bullion mersilver bullion to the Mint, red into coin, that coin is ore than the bullion as the has been expended in its quently he should pay for his convenience when he

others. It saves him the

vould otherwise have been t saves him the time, labor, it would have taken to pon its fineness. It saves ntity or quality. This is cost of manufacture. It worth that much more. He > pay for it, and he ought e parts with it, it will bring for as the person who will he convenience of the manuor its enhanced value. The

manufacture becomes incors much as the raw material, bits intrinsic value, and like to hand in its circulation.

The Coinage Question-Mr. Dunham.

allowed in receiving it for the enhancement of
value which that manufacture caused. It can only
be lost when the coin, by accident or design, shall
be reduced to bullion again, and this labor evolved
(if I may use the expression) and lost to him who
should be so unfortunate as to meet with accident,
or so stupid as to conceive the design.

It is possible that coin may be remelted into bul-
lion without loss to the holder, notwithstanding a
charge for coinage may have been exacted; but
this can only happen when the production of
gold is limited, and the demand for it for other
purposes than currency is greater than the need of
it for currency; and then the holder of the coins can
suffer no loss, as the bullion in them will be worth
as much for those other purposes, as the coin is
worth for circulation. But so long as the pro-
duction of the metal is unlimited this cannot hap.
pen, as the demand for those other purposes will
be met with the increased production of the raw
material. Impose a charge for coinage, then, equal
to its cost, and there can scarcely be an over coin-
age, as no one will ordinarily have an article fab-
ricated unless its value when manufactured is equal
to the value of the raw material added to the cost
of manufacturing. There can be no danger of a
short supply, because so long as the article is
worth this, it will be made. Impose this charge,
and you at once put a stop to our present immense
coinage at such an enormous expense to the Gov-
ernment, induced and fostered by our free system,
merely that the coin may be put into boxes and
sacks at the Mint and sent without emptying to
the melting pots of Europe. When an hundred
ounces of coin has cost and is worth as much
more than an hundred ounces of bullion as it has
cost to make it into coin, that coin will no longer
be remelted into bullion.

We are coining over fifty millions a year. Who is so simple as to suppose that this is for circulation among our own citizens? Who so simple as to believe that even the largest portion of it is now in the country? Who does not know that we have been defraying the expense of this immense coinage for the convenience and profit of New York brokers? Is it not time to put a stop to this? Is it not time that those who derive the profits of this coinage should pay the expense?

HO. OF REPS.

and the frequency of the exchange of that wealth, leaving no traces of its having passed through our dominions other than an empty Treasury, and the profits of Wall street brokers, ship-owners, insurance and express companies? Might we not as well at once pay these profits out of the Treasury?

The gentleman from New York, [Mr. BROOKS,] in a speech which he made a few months ago, talked most learnedly about this seigniorage being a "relic of feudality. He said that it ought to belong to the Grand Seignior, because it is seigniorage. Indeed, he talked so very learnedly about feudalities and feudalisms, that I almost imagined that he was himself a relic of those ancient times when men talked most flippantly about that which they least understood. Does he not know, does not this House know, that seigniorage then meant something very different from what it does as used in this bill? Then it was a tax upon the coinage to replenish the treasury of the feudal lord; here it means simply a charge, not for a revenue, but for the actual expenses of the manufacture of the coin. The gentleman seemed to me to under-estimate very much the intelligence of the House, when he sought to appeal to your prejudices, by talking about such a charge as being a relic of the feudal times of antiquity, in order to deter you from adopting it, though it might be ever so proper and judicious in itself.

The SPEAKER. About fifteen minutes, according to the recollection of the Chair.

Mr. DUNHAM. I am sorry it is so short, and I will endeavor to condense my remarks as much as possible.

Mr. Speaker, the first thing to which I wish to call attention this morning, is a matter to which the gentleman from New York [Mr. BROOKS] alluded on yesterday. His statement was, that we did not require one half of one per cent. seigniorage to pay the expenses of the Mint, and stated the fact that the Mint at Philadelphia only asked an appropriation of $48,000 out of the Treasury to defray its expenses for the next fiscal year, in addition to the profits it now derives from coinage. It is very true that that Mint only asks an appropriation out of the Treasury of $48,000 for the next fiscal year; yet its whole expenses will be considerably more than that. For instance, during the past year-and it is a matter to which I wish to call the especial attention of the House-there have been coined at Philadelphia 18,663,500 three-cent coins, making $559,905; as these coins are of the proportionate weight to our other silver coins, and are made of metal only seven hundred and fifty thousandths fine, instead of nine hundred, the proper standard, their nominal is twenty per cent. above their intrinsic value, or in other words, they are actually worth but two and a half cents each. There

But, sir, we are told that the Government monopolizes and controls the coinage, and should, therefore, bear the expense. That must be a curious monopoly where the monopolizer pays all the expense, and those upon whom it operates have all the profit. The Government forces no man to bring his raw material to the Mint to be coined. He may bring it or not, as he pleases; he will not bring it unless it is to his interest. If he brings it, the Government puts its stamp upon it, but it does not prohibit him from putting his own upon it and selling it, or from having it manufactured into plate or jewelry. The Government stamp may increase its value, but it cannot diminish or limit it, for we see silver with that stamp upon it selling above the stamped price. The law says that his creditors shall take this coin in pay-fore, as silver is received at the Mint at its proper ment of their debts, but it does not say that they shall receive no other. It says that they shall take it at the value marked upon it; it does not say they shall allow no more for it. It may, therefore, be to his advantage to have his bullion manufactured into coin, but it cannot be to his disadvantage. Why, then, should the Government coin it free any more, I repeat, than it should make it into plate or jewelry?

But we are told it is for the general good of the people that there should be plenty of coin; therefore the Government should pay for the manufacture. So it is that there should be plenty of iron, flour, and salt. Shall the Government pay for their manufacture also, or shall those pay who use them, that have the benefit of them? And if because it is useful to have an abundance of gold coin, the expense of the manufacture should be paid out of the Treasury, so as to encourage gold to come into the country to be coined, why should not the freight from California and Australia be also paid out of the Treasury? Why should we not pay a premium for its production? Nay, why not have it

due at public exnense? And all to what good when

value, and made into these coins, which are then paid out by tale at their nominal value, the profit from this source last year was over $100,000. This is what I call a seigniorage, and a very heavy one, too. There is also a profit of the same character arising from the copper coinage, and a charge for refining or parting the metals. These profits go towards defraying the expenses of the Mint.

The estimated profits from the coinage of threecent pieces, for the next fiscal year, is $70,000; if, however, we should change the fineness of that coin to the regular standard, which I think we ought, by all means, to do, we must add this amount to the $48,000 to be appropriated out of the Treasury; and if the gentleman had taken the pains to examine, he would have discovered that this sum was asked upon the estimate that there would remain, unexpended, of the present year's means, to commence the next, $38,000, which must also be added, making, in all, $156,000, to come out of the Treasury for Philadelphia alone. If we pass this bill making these new coins, and do not change the standard of the three-cent

nienea

there will still be locs demand for the

Delay of Public Business—Mr. Houston, of Alabama.

branch at which

em a common

of the coinage ches, are to be ze of collection.

ost a larger per where provision ch Mint, than at the branches at

arlotte. Whilst

er cent. at Phila-
t. at Dahlonega
st here, that the
e better for the
are continuing ||
when neither of
ch as the Mint
They ought to

Tint at Philadel-
as $271,213 95,
ted out of the
btained from its
s before stated,
s were received
es. The amount

the Dahlonega harlotte branch s branch about -cent profits, the = fiscal year out for ordinary exof the Treasury elphia $156,000; otte $11,600; for e whole amount he Treasury or ume it is known

cent coins are

calendar year ..$52,403,669 4,622,000 396,739 473,815

..$57,896,218 per cent. would sing the future I to that of the New York and hereafter make metal, the seignexorbitant, and s of the coinage, Treasury. It is o authorize this income by way ears, be derived iorage, but this nses of the Caliadded, when it the Government e. The bullion

thus to go on, and compel the people to use these
old, worn-out, depreciated coins, to have the coun-
try filled with these debased three-cent pieces, or
to make a currency of the proper standard, ade-
quate to the wants and conveniences of the people?
'The manufacture and circulation of these three-
cent coins should satisfy gentlemen that even a
high seigniorage will not drive the metals from
your Mints, when the business and wants of the
people require them to go there for manufacture,
and that a small reduction of the quantity of metal
in a coin does not prevent its circulation when it
is made up by its convenience. That convenience
causes circulation as well as the intrinsic value.

venience of deis fund is to enon of the deposlue, and at once sually done in a 1 delay and loss fund alone is a enefit of the deo charge is now by this bill. subject, to again

We are told if we make this charge for coinage we shall drive the productions of our gold mines from our own to the British Mint for coinage.

Well, sir, if it must eventually go to the Eng

lish market, is it not better that it should go there
directly, rather than it should be brought this way
merely to be stopped here in transitu long enough
to be coined, at such immense expense, and then
go immediately to that market? If it must go
there-if the laws of trade require it to go there,
it will go, and it is better to let

go as bullion

than as coin, when, as the gentleman from New
York himself shows, the impress of our eagle is
effaced so soon as it touches British soil. This
charge for coinage will send no more gold to Eng-
land, will not control the laws of trade, will not
cause importations or exportations. Gentlemen
will find proof of this in silver. We coin silver
here free, but in England they charge a seigniorage
of some nine per cent. If you take a pound of
standard silver to the Mint, they coin it into sixty-
six shillings and give back sixty-two shillings-
keeping four shillings to pay for the coinage; or,
which is in effect the same thing, they buy silver at
sixty-two shillings the pound by tale, and coin that
pound into sixty-six shillings. You may call it
seigniorage, or just what you please, but they make
so much by the coinage.

Mr. BROOKS. You said upon gold.

Mr. DUNHAM. Oh, no; you misunderstood me. They buy an ounce of gold at £3 17s. 9d., in Bank of England notes, and they coin that ounce into £3 17s. 10d., which is one and a half penny, or about three cents seigniorage upon the

ounce.

Mr. BROOKS. Will the gentleman allow me
to interrupt him for a moment?

Mr. DUNHAM. I should be glad to do so,
but I cannot, for I have very little time left. There
is also a seigniorage of one and a half
per cent.
upon the coinage of silver in France, and there is
a seigniorage upon the coinage of silver by every
other civilized Government, so far as we have any
reliable account. Yet we find this silver bullion
not coming to the United States where we coin it
free; but forcing its way to Europe, or being drawn
thither by the wants of commerce and the irresist-
ible laws of trade, to Mints imposing this enormous
seigniorage. This shows that seigniorage cannot
control the exportation or importation of silver
bullion. Every man who at all understands the
principles of political economy, must see in a mo-
ment, that where property has to be exchanged by
means of a circulating medium-where commercial
necessities require a circulating medium, there will
be the demand for the material which composes,
and there will it go.

SENATE.

worth as much more than the bullion as that cost,
will derive a profit. The result will be, that in a
few years we shall have an abundant supply of
specie currency for the convenience of the country,
and a comparatively small coinage will be suffi-
cient to maintain it, whilst now we have an im-
mense coinage at great expense, but a deficiency
of specie for circulation.

DELAY OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.

SPEECH OF HON. G. S. HOUSTON,
OF ALABAMA,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
February 16, 1853,

In reply to Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia, concerning
the causes of delay in the transaction of the
Public Business.

The CHAIRMAN. The time fixed by the House
for the termination of debate on this bill has now
arrived, and the gentleman from Alabama, having
reported the bill, is, under the rules, entitled to
address the committee on it for one hour.

Mr. HOUSTON said: Mr. Chairman, on yesterday when this bill was taken up, it was not my intention to occupy any portion of the hour to which I am entitled under the rules; but the character of the debate which has taken place makes it to some extent necessary that I should make, at least, a brief explanation, and, at the same time, to give, with all proper respect to other gentlemen, my opinion as to the causes of obstruction of the public business.

I regret that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. STEPHENS thought it proper for him to make an assault upon the organization of this House. It seemed to me that his remarks did not come legitimately within the range of a proper debate, and so far did he, in my view, travel out of the line of pertinent discussion, that I am almost led to believe he had some other than the ostensible object in view. I did not suppose that the relations between the honorable gentleman and the Speaker, or between him and the committees of the House, were of such a character as to induce so severe a criticism as that in which he has seen fit to indulge. I am willing to admit that I have not discharged my duty to my own entire satisfaction. I take it, we have but few members who have discharged their entire duty. We all have short-comings. The frailties of our nature are such as to render it almost impossible for any of us to come fully up to our sense of duty. The gentleman possibly reaches the standard fixed by himself. If he does, I congratulate his constituents on having a representative here who, at all times, discharges his duty as the representative of their interest in this House.

I desire to say, in the beginning of my remarks, that upon no occasion during this Congress have I made a motion or given a vote for the purpose of delaying business or postponing proper action on any proposition; and for the correctness of this statement, I appeal to the members, as well as to the Journals of this body. I have usually been punctual in my attendance upon the meetings of the Committee on Ways and Means, and also of this House. I have generally voted upon propositions that have arisen, and in everything (I feel that I can properly say) I have faithfully labored to discharge my duty, and to prove myself worthy of the trust which has been confided to me by my constituents and by this House.

The gentleman says that where the bullion of the world goes, there will go the commerce of the world; and he seems to infer that the gold takes with it the commerce. But is not that a most absurd proposition? Does not the bullion go where the commerce exists, and where it requires that o the enormous bullion for a circulating medium for the conveniee-cent pieces-ence and necessity of that commerce? The gengle year. Why, tleman takes the cause for the effect. This seigne change in our iorage will have only this influence upon the exportr currency of the ation and importation of gold and silver: it will three-cent coins induce those who desire to make payments in Eu-cuted in due season. ish coins, whose rope to make them in bullion; or, if made in coin, t twelve per cent. it will tend to cause the reimportation of that coin; for if, as before stated, it is worth as much more than the bullion from which it was made as the cost of manufacturing, he who exports it to a market where it is only recognized as bullion, will lose that much, and he who reimports it from such a market to where it can again be used, and is needed as currency, and therefore where it is again

the demand for

the demand for that they readily is vast depreciat, to leave things

Mr. Chairman, I hope I may be excused for recurring very briefly to the action of this Congress. At the first session, after the formation of committees, every member knows, and none better than the gentleman from Georgia, that the public printing (necessary to enable committees to investigate subjects committed to them) was not exeThe printing of that session is not, up to this period, entirely completed. All of the bills upon which the Committee on Ways and Means could act, in the absence of that printing, were reported to the House within the thirty days prescribed by the rules; and I, as its chairman, was instructed to report to this body, that the reason why some of the bills could not be reported within the prescribed time, was, that we could not examine the various items which they

32D CONG.....2

contained in a satis
necessary public doct
If the honorable g
to accuse me of delinc
the time for him to h
to me as singular
performance of such
Congress, when we a
arating. If the gent
to institute an exami
Committee on Ways a
reported the appropri
time, notwihtstanding
which I have already
committee. The forti
e as July or Augus
public printing has be
and the Committee o
sequently, had bett
gation of the subjects
to their charge. Hen
required by the rules
first thirty days, but
mates had been submi
that time.

The estimates for the
bill, as well as those
service, were not subm
in January, and withi

estimates were sent to
tives, the Committee
ported those bills. T
itself, if the bills were
they not acted upon?
difficulty-that is the m
has been occupying th
for the last day or two.
order was made, and,
few days, special orders
tion of the day from
close of the session. T
the special order of the
and it was continued u
which time it passed t
to say that the merits
Cassed every day, but
measure was ostensibl
On the 24th of Ma
special order, appropr
the reception of repor
exclusion of all other
order the morning ho
the residue of the ses
ing hour was thus
bills coming before
would occupy the wh
The question may b
bill was so long under
when the merits of th
examined in the cours

tion be asked of me,

to the gentleman from who (as he will remer posed closing that de the House from havin and proposed amendm and the gentleman h judging from the co on yesterday indulged tion of that discussio fore useless for any le occasion when an eff on that bill, so late a tleman voted agains feat of a proposition business. The gent ys it was a very did not vote to stop propose to show the those who have op and in that way has

the delay and obstr
favor of free and ful
ositions connected v
investigated, but 1
imately arising from
eration. My reco
has usually pursue
Aside from the
already referred, th

the debate when it

nected with the pu

ctory manner without the ments.

I made that report. tleman had been disposed ency, then would have been ve done it; and it does seem at he has postponed the task until the close of the e within a few days of sepeman will take the trouble ation, he will find that the nd Means, at the last session, tion bills within the usual the difficulties and delays to called the attention of this fication bill was reported as t. During this session the en more promptly executed, on Ways and Means have, ter facilities for the investiwhich have been committed nce, not only the four bills to be reported within the every one for which estiitted, were reported within he Post Office appropriation e for the ocean mail steam -mitted to Congress until late thin a few days after those o the House of Representae on Ways and Means reThe question then presents -re thus reported, why were

That brings up the whole
matter of controversy which
the attention of the House
70. Early in March a special
d, with the exception of a
ers were continued, for a por-
m that time until about the
The homestead bill became
he day on the 2d of March,
until the 12th of May, at
this House. I do not mean
s of the bill itself were dis-
ut that most of the time that
bly under consideration.
[ay, Congress made another
priating the morning hour to
rts from committees, to the
r business. Under that special
our was mostly occupied for
ssion, and not only the morn-
employed, but occasionally
the House under that order
7hole day.

be asked, why the homestead
er discussion, and especially
the proposition were seldom
rse of debate? If that ques-
, I will turn the inquirer over
m Georgia, [Mr. STEPHENS,]
ember) voted against and op-
lebate, and thereby prevented
ing an early vote upon the bill
ments. I thought at the time,
himself seems to think now,
ourse of remark in which he
ed, that much the largest por-
on was irrelevant, and there-
legislative purpose. Upon the
fort was made to close debate
as the 20th of April, the gen-
st it-thereby aiding in a de-
n looking to the dispatch of
leman interrupts me now, and
good discussion, and that he
it at last. Let that be so; I
at he has generally been with
posed efforts to close debate,
himself been instrumental in
uction of business. I am in
1 debates. I like to hear prop-
rith our duties here thoroughly
have generally been for closing
wandered from the issues legit-
the proposition under consid-
lection is that the gentleman
Ia different course.
pecial orders to which I have

the House under one of its rules, which authorized
the Committee on Printing to report at any time,
and in that way making the report a privileged
question. After the reports were made, they were
generally (and I believe in every instance) debated
in the House, and for the time precluded action
upon anything else. Gentlemen will remember that
the printing propositions created great warmth of
feeling on all sides of the House-so much so that
the House would not pass from them to other
things, even if it had been in order to make a
motion for that purpose. During all of the time
covered by special orders it was not in order to
move the consideration of any other subject-it re-
quired unanimous consent to pass from them. The
reports from the Committee on Printing in many re-
spects are very similar in effect upon other business
to a special order. These were causes of delay at
the first session of this Congress, which, under the
circumstances, could not well be avoided. Those
special orders were made at a time when, I take it
for granted, it was not the expectation of the House
that they would occupy so much of its time and
attention; but when made, they were fastened
upon us, and we could not relieve ourselves from
the difficulty without obtaining a vote which, under
ordinary circumstances, could not be obtained.
The gentleman from Georgia in his remarks on
yesterday drew a contrast between the condition
of things now and the condition of things twenty-
five years ago. He said that we ought to have
such statesmen here now as we had then. My
friend should remember that it is not every dis-
trict which, in that particular, is equally blessed
with his. When the people of a district do the
best they can, they should not be assailed either
directly or through their representative for having
furnished members who do not happen to come
up to the high standard of statesmanship set by
other gentlemen. I do not think, however, the
gentleman's contrast is sustained by the record,
and if members of this committee will refer back
to the action of Congress, from a very early period
of the Government, they will find that at every
short session of Congress, the appropriation bills
became laws in the very last days of the session
in nineteen cases out of twenty-from 1795 up to
this time. So far, then, as the gentleman drew a
contrast to the disadvantage of Congress at this
time, his comparison does not hold good, and is
not warranted by the history and facts of the case.
Mr. STEPHÉNS, of Georgia Will the gentle-
man allow me one word?

Mr. HOUSTON. Certainly.

Mr. STEPHENS. I was not speaking yesterday particularly of the appropriation bills. I was speaking of the vast accumulation of business upon the Speaker's table, which was blocking up everything, and which we all understand. But the gentleman speaks particularly of the appropriation bills. I think he will find himself in an error in regard to the statement he has made. It has been usual for those bills to pass the last day of the session, I grant that; but it has not been usual that they should be so long delayed in this House. They have usually passed this House at an early stage of the session, gone to the Senate, come back, and remained over for amendment. It is usual, and it is not improper, as the gentleman stated this morning, that they should pass the last days of the session, but they ought to have been discussed in this House before and investigated. We are within a few days of the adjournment, and the civil and diplomatic bill is to be forced upon us. A resolution was passed this morning to close debate in one hour upon a bill appropriating millions of dollars. Two months of the session gone, and there has been no investigation of the bill, which is not even read by sections at the Clerk's desk. The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means asked to take it up without a first reading, and voted for a proposition to close debate upon it in one hour. That is his system of legislation, of which I complain.

Mr. HOUSTON. The gentleman is mistaken in his facts again. I did not propose to close debate in one hour.

Ho. OF REPS.

bill, and if any solitary speaker touched a clause in it I am not aware of it.

Mr. STEPHENS. I spoke of the resolution introduced to-day which was to stop debate in one hour. I did not say that the gentleman from Alabama moved it, but I say that he voted for it and the House sustained it.

Mr. HOUSTON. The gentleman understands me and I do him. If his remark is worth anything, it will convey to the House and the country the idea, that there was only one hour's debate allowed on this bill, when the fact is, the bill occupied all day yesterday, except some business in the morning. The gentleman made a speech upon it, and had an opportunity to discuss its features and provisions. Did he propose to ascertain the propriety of appropriating "the millions" of which he speaks? Did he touch the question of these millions at all? Did he propose to call the attention and consideration of the House to any provision of the bill? He did not. Then why should he complain? I did not intend to dispute with the gentleman as to who offered the resolution closing debate I was not attempting to play upon words. I speak of the resolution offered by the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. JONES] as a movement of the House, and say that the gentleman is mistaken in his understanding of the facts. It is a mistake to say that debate was stopped on this bill in one hour. There were several hours allowed; and if gentlemen have shown a disposition to debate anything and everything except the bill, then debate should be closed. But the gentleman says I asked that the first reading should be dispensed with. Does he not know that such is the usual practice with appropriation bills? When did an appropriation bill come up in Committee of the Whole that the first reading was not dispensed with by unanimous consent, and its second reading proceeded with for amendments?

Mr. STEPHENS. I dislike to interrupt the gentleman, but I never knew the first reading dispensed with. I recollect very well in the last Congress that the honorable gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. BURT] held that it was out of order to make such a motion, and the whole bill was read through in the House.

Mr. HOUSTON. I will not speak of the last Congress. I was not here. The gentleman from Georgia has certainly paid but little attention, in Committee of the Whole, to the appropriation bills. I assure him that so far as I am concerned, I have taken up no appropriation bill since I have been a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, in which we have not, by unanimous consent, dispensed with the first reading. This, however, is an unimportant matter, and I would not have noticed it but for the fact that the gentleman alluded to it as if it were a new thing under the sun, and for the purpose of creating the impression that I am asking the House to do an unusual thing in the progress and dispatch of the public business. But the gentleman says that the appropriation bills have usually passed before this time. In that he is also mistaken. I may not know what he means by "usually." I am at a loss to know whether he intends to apply it to the last Congress, to the Congress before that, or to all preceding Congresses. I have not had an opportunity of examining very carefully upon that point; but I know that at this period of the last Congress, the bills were not so far advanced as they are now, and at the Thirtieth Congress they were but little if any in advance of those bills at a corresponding period of this. It is true that some of the bills that are now unacted upon by the House, were in that Congress disposed of earlier in the session than this; but some of the bills that have been acted upon by the House at this session were unacted upon at the same period of that Congress. It is therefore difficult to say what is usual in regard to the time at which the appropriation bills pass the House.

The gentleman says "everything is pell-mell;" that there is great confusion; that the Speaker fails to do his duty; there is a want of confidence in the heads of committees; the organization of the House is defective; and he gives these things as the cause of the obstruction of business in the House. Mr. Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I proposed the || Chairman. I would like anv wantlamen to tall ma

Mr. STEPHENS. I do not say the gentleman did. I say the House did.