February 15, 1869

Mr. PAINE. I rise to report from the Committee on Reconstruction a bill for the removal of disabilities.

Mr. BO UT WELL. I ask the gentleman to yield to me for the purpose of moving to take up the constitutional amendment.

Mr. PAINE. I would inquire of the gentleman whether he expects action upon it at this time?

Mr. BOUTWELL. My purpose is to move to non-concur with the Senate and ask a committee of conference. It will not occupy a great deal of time.

Mr. PAINE. I will yield to the gentleman for that purpose, but I hope that no long time will be consumed.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I move to suspend the rules for the purpose of taking up from the Speaker s table the amendments of the Senate to the joint resolution (H. R. No. 402) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. BROOKS. I demand the yeas and nays on that motion.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and there were— yeas 126, nays 31, not voting 65; as follows: TEAS—Messrs. Anderson, Baker, Baldwin, Beaman, Beatty. Benjamin, Benton, Bingham, Blaine, Blair, Boutwell. Bowen, Boyden, Bromwell, Broomall, Buckland, Buckley, Benjamin]?. Butler, Boderick a. Butler, Cailis, Churchill, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Clift, Cobb. Corley, Cornell, Covode, Cullom Dawes Deweese, Dickey, Dock ery, Donnelly, Dnggs. Lckley, Edwards, Eggleston, Ela, Thomas D. Jlliot, Farnsworth, Ferriss, Ferry, Fields, Goss, Gove. Gravely, Haughey, Hawkins, Heaton, Higby, Hill, Hopkins, Chester D. Hubbard, Hulburd, Hunter, ingersoll, J enokes, Johnson, Julian, .Kelley, Kellogg Kelsey, Ketcham, Kitchen, Koontz, Lafiin, La«h Georgo V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Loughridgo, Lynch, Mallory, Marvin, Maynard, McKee, Moore. Moorhead, Morrell, Myers, Newcomb, Newsham, «orns Nunn, O Neill Paine, Perham, Peters, Pierce, Pile, Plants, Poland. Polslev, Pomeroy Price Prince, Raum, Robertson, Sawyer! Seofield, Shanks, Shellabarger, Spalding. Starkweather, Stewart, fctoses, Stover, Sypher, Taffe, Thomas, Trowbridge, 7 mke l Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Rob- ?£t T Van Horn, Van Wyck, Ward. Cadwalader 0. Washburn, William B. Washburn. Welker. Whittemore. Thomas Williams, William Williams, Windom, and Woodbridge—126.

NAYS—Messrs. Axtell, Barnes, Beck, Boyer, Burr, Chanler, Eldridge, Fox, Glossbrenner, Golladay, Grover, Haight, Holman, Ilotehkiss, Ilumphiey, Thomas L. Jones, Kerr, Knott, Marshall, Mungen, Niblack, Nicholson. Phelps, Ross, Sit«reav s Stone) Taber, Van Trump, Wood, Woodward, andl oung—31 NOT VOTING—Messrs. Adams, Allison, Ames, Archer, Arnell, Delos 11. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Bailey, Banks, Barnum, Blackburn, Boles, Brooks, Cake, Cary. Coburn, Cook, Delano, Dixon. Dodge, James T. Elliott, French, Garfield, Getz, Griswold, Halsey. Hamilton Harding Hooper, Asahel W Hubbard, Richard D. Hubbard, Alexander 11, Jones, Judil Lincoln Loan Logan McCarthy, McCormick, McCullough, Mercur, Miller, Morrissey, Mullins, Orth, Pettis. Pike. Pruyn Randall Robinson, Roots Schenck, Selye, Smith, Stevens, Taylor, Tift, John Trimble, Lawrence S. Trimble, Van Auken, Vidal, Elihu B. Washburne, Henry D. Washburn, James F, Wilson, John T. Wilson, and Stephen F Wilson—65 So (two thirds voting in favor thereof) the rules were suspended, and the amendments of the Senate were taken up and read, as follows: Line two add the letter "s" to the word** article." Line three strike out the word" an" and add" s" to*' amendment.”

Line four, after" State," insert" either of."

Alter line six insert "first amendment."

Strike out the first seetio n and insert in lieu thereof^ No discrimination shall be made in any State among the citizens of the United States in the exercise of the elective franchise or in the right to hold office in any State on account of race, color, nativity, property, education, or creed.

At the end of to resolution inserttho following?

Second amendment:

Article—.

The second clause, firstseetion, second articleofthe Constitution of the United States shall be amended to read as follows:

Each State shall appoint, by a vote of the people thereof qualified to vote for Representatives in Congress, a number of electors equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States shall bo appointed an elector; and the Congress shall have power to prescribe the manner in which such electors shall be chosen by the people.

Amend the title of the resolution by striking out an" and adding *'s" to" amendment."

Mr. BOUTWELL. Here is a proposition in regard to electors which has not been considered in this House. The proposition concerning suffrage has been materially changed, I have considered whether it is practicable to concur in the amendments of the Senate with an amendment, but I have come to the conclusion that that, as a matter of business, is impracticable. I see no way in the present condition of things except to non concur in the action of the Senate, and to ask for a committee of conference; and I make that motion.

Mr. BINGHAM. I move to concur, MrSpeaker; and if the gentleman will allow me to state, I ask the attention of the House to the fact that the additional amendment by the Senate, not heretofore considered in the House, leaves the apportionment of electors among the States as it always has been under the Constitution; that is to say, according to the number of Senators and Representatives to which eaek State shall be entitled, but it provides they shall hereafter be chosen by the popular vote. It provides further that the Congress of the United States shall have power to prescribe the districts and time of election, excluding all officers of the United States or all persons who hold office of honor or trust under the United States from the position of electors. It substantially leaves the Constitution in respect to the apportionment of electors as it is but. gives the people the direct choice of them, subject to the control of Congress.

The House will doubtless remember the other provision of the Constitution remains as it is, that Congress shall have the power to fix thetime of choosing the electors, which shall be on the same day in the several States, in the words of the Constitution.

Now, I do not desire to take up the time of the House in the form of argument. If the gentleman from Massachusetts desires to be heard in the way of argument I will yield to him for that purpose. I only mean to state the fact to the House. I move to concur in the amendments of the Senate.

The SPEAKER. The motion to concur takes precedence of the motion to non-concur.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I wish to state the particular objection I have to concurring in the amendment of the Senate.

Mr. BINGHAM. I will yield to the gentleman for that purpose.

-Mr. BOUT WELL. Mr. Speaker, I think there are two fatal objections to the proposition coming from the Senate. I could enumerate many others of great magnitude; but in regard to the proposition concerning suffrage, if there is any one purpose we have had in view in regard to this amendment of the Constitution it has been to secure to the slave class the right to vote. Now, then, this amendment, as it comes from the Senate, says there shall be no discrimination in the right to vote or hold office on account of race, color, nativity, education, property, or creed. But the point I make against this proposition is that it leaves it open to the States to declare by law that persons who have been held in slavery, or whose mothers were slaves, shall neither vote nor hold office; and this amendment to the Constitution, if adopted, would furnish no means by which that evil could be remedied, because the slave class, as is well known, are of no specific color and are of no particular race, and can only be described by the use, in substance, of that phrase, which gentlemeti here seem to avoid, but which has grown out of the historical fact of the age, and which we must meet by the use of language explicit and clear. We must say that there shall be no discrimination on account of the previous condition of slavery. There is no security in the proposition, as it comes from the Senate, for this great class of American citizens. And this is but one objection to the first amendment of the Senate.

When we come to the second amendment of the Senate, in reference to the selection of electors, it should be borne in mind that while these are to be submitted separately to the Legislatures of the several States, we, under the rules, are placed in such positions that if we vote to concur, we vote to concur in both propositions withoutanyabilityhereto separate them.

Mr. BINGHAM.' Will the gentleman allow me to correct him. Does he say that there must be joint action on the two amendments?

Mr, BOUTWELL. Not upon the ratification. What I say is that this House is in a position where it must vote to concur or nonconcur, and there can be but one question upon these propositions. If we vote to concur in one, we concur on both, although the States, when they come to act upon them, will vote upon them separately.

But the objection to this second proposition is this, that there is no provision that there is to be a uniform rule in reference to the manner of choosing electors. Congress is given the entire control over the manner of choosing electors. There is no provision that it shall be uniform. In one State, with a majority agreeing with the majority in Congress, they may provide that they should be elected by general ticket, while in States where the majority of the people were in opinion against the majority of Congress, Congress would provide that the election should be by districts. You would then put it in the power of a majority of Congress to district the country, wherever the district system would be advantageous, and to provide that it should be by a general ticket, where the majority in Congress could have the advantage. I do not want my party friends put in any such position as to resort to such a dishonorable practice as that, and I am sure that I do not wish to give my opponents an opportunity to do so. But I am willing to leave this matter to the House, and that the vote shall be taken whether we shall not non concur in the Senate amendments, and let the whole matter go to a committee of conference.

Mr. BINGHAM. I wish to make a word of reply.

The SPEAKER. How much time does the gentleman wish?

Mr. BINGHAM. Ten or fifteen minutes.

Mr. BOUTWELL. The House is so pressed, with business that I cannot yield to the gentleman for longer than ten minutes.

Mr-. BINGHAM. If I understand the remarks of the gentleman from Massachusetts, he objects because this proposed amendment of the Constitution does not also contain the words" or on account of previous condition of servitude." Do I understand the gentleman correctly?

Mr. BOUTWELL. I do not wish to have any discussion in reference to the matter. I waived other important objections for the purpose of presenting a statement to the House of this one objection.

Mr. BINGHAM. I understand this is the objection.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I should object to several other features of this amendment upon its passage.

Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, if I thought those who were once slaves, and, in the words of Kent, natural born citizens of the United States under disability, but who are now freemen and therefore citizens of the United States under no disability, were not upon an equal footing with other natural born citizens, I would agree with the gentleman and never vote for this amendment at all even if it received the assent of the House; but I differ from the gentleman toto ccelo in his premises. I say that since the adoption of the thirteenth and fourteenth articles of amendment to the Constitution those who were once slaves—citizens, in the language of Kent, under disability—are as much free citizens without disability as any other citizens in the Republic and under the equal protection of the law. I only quote the words of the great commentator himself when I say further, in addition to what I have already said, that the moment the condition of slavery ceases they become citizens without disability. The words "natural born" occur in the Constitution. It also provides that all persons born in the Republic, and also all persons of foreign birth who may become naturalized, shall be citizens of the United States. Now, I answer, first, that if this amendment be passed by the two Houses and is agreed to by three fourths of the Legislatures of the States it will become a part of the Constitntion of the United States.

Mr. JONES of Kentucky. I rise to a question of order. The confusion is so great that we cannot hear the gentleman from Ohio at all. If he would retain his seat on this side of the House we could hear him a great deal better.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I am sorry my friend from Ohio has deserted us. [Laughter.]

Mr. BINGHAM. If the amendment should be concurred in, and it should afterwards be ratified, I will undertake to say, as a Representative of the American people, that it would be henceforth out of the power of any State of the Union to discriminate against any class of natural born citizens of the Republic on account of slavery or servitude. For one, having reflected much on this subject, I am now ready to pass a law which shall be effective, and enforcing it in our own courts, against any such despotism being attempted by any State in the Union, in the event of the adoption and ratification of this amendment.

I will add further, Mr. Speaker, that when you come to consider an amendment to the fundamental law the question is, what is the grievance to be remedied, what is the injury, what is the wrong you wish to redress? I ask the gentleman from Massachusetts to consider that there is not a State constitution in America which disqualifies from office any human being on account of previous condition of servitude. The disqualification is on account of color, on account of the accident of birth, on account of want of educational qualifications, on account of creed, and on account of want of property; and all these grievances are remedied and covered by this amendment, every one of them. One reason why I ask the House to concur is that this Congress is in the last days of its existence, and every man knows that unfinished business does not survive, but perishes with it. By refusing to concur with the• Senate you may never have another opportunity of presenting this question to the consideration of the American people. It is equal and just and right, for it puts the political privileges of the natural born and naturalized citizens alike under the protection of the laws, irrespective of color. It is just and right in this, that it disposes of discriminations made on account of faith in the laws of New Hampshire; it disposes of the discrimination ou account of nativity iii the constitution of Rhode island, and of New York on account of property. It disposes of the discrimination in twenty or more States in the Union on account of color; it puts the citizens of the United States upon an equal footing, and I repeat, it puts it beyond the power of any State to disfranchise any natural born or naturalized citizen on account of nativity, color, education, property, or creed.

As to servitude, that is embraced in the words color, race, and nativity. It will be in vain to look into any of the State constitutions for any such disability, for they never undertook to discriminate against any man on account of previous condition of servitude. Every man knows that it would be a violation of the letter and spirit of the proposed amendment, and the thirteenth and fourteenth articles already ratified.

As to the other objection raised about the second article proposed by the Senate, I ask the House to consider that the word "uniform'' is not in the Constitution touching election of Representatives as it stands to day The word is not there. It was not necessary; for it was not presumed that any Congress would attempt to set up one law for Ohio and another law for Massachusetts.

Mr. BROMWELL. I ask the gentleman from Ohio to yield to me for a moment.

Mr. BINGHAM. Certainly.

Mr. BROMWELL. I wish to call the gentleman s attention to one thing. I should like to know whether there is any provision incorporated anticipating the objection on account of previous condition of servitude, and putting it out of the power of any State to prevent any citizen of the United States from voting on account of former condition of servitude? The gentleman from Ohio states, because the Constitution makes them all citizens it is all right; but cannot a State prevent a citizen from actually voting on account of this very circumstance?

Mr. BINGHAM. Not at all. Thatiswhat Ianticipated; that if this amendment be passed a State can do no such thing, and the suggestion of the gentleman ought to be a reason why we should not send the amendment back to the Senate for its action. I will make this suggestion in connection with it; although I admit that if the additional words" previous condition of servitude" were putin I still would vote for it, for the reason that I do not think it changes the legal effect of it at all.

Mr. BROMWELL. But striking it out might change the legal effect of it.

Mr. BINGHAM. Not atall; it is not there now to be stricken out. T will make this suggestion: that if you put these words in the Constitution, "shall not discriminate on account of previous condition of servitude," then by every known rule of construction it would imply that discrimination might be made on account of some future condition of servitude. [Here the hammer fell.]

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Mas sachusetts [Mr. Boutwell] is entitled to the floor.

Mr. WOODWARD. Will the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. BOUTWELL. For what purpose?

Mr. WOODWARD. I desire to move an amendment.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I cannot yield for that purpose.

Mr. WOODWARD. Perhaps the gentleman will when he hears what my amendment is.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I have a very distinct opinion upon that subject.

Mr. WOODWARD. The gentleman ought not to decide against me before lie hears me.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I will yield to the gentleman for a few remarks, if he desires.

Mr. WOODWARD. 1 desire to move an amendment to the joint resolution which provides for submitting these amendments, so that they shall be submitted to the Legislatures to be elected next after the adoption of this resolution. The object I have in view is to bring these amendments before the people of the States after they have had an opportunity to elect Legislatures with a view to these amendments. The evil now is that in no State has a Legislature been elected with a view to this Radical proposition upon the subject of negro suffrage.

Now, what I want is to give the people of this country an opportunity to pass upon that question. If the gentleman really means that the Constitution shall be amended in the spirit and according to the letter of the Constitution he can have no objection to submitting these amendments to the people of this country. You do not submit them to the people of the country by submitting them to existing Legislatures. The only way in which you can bring them before the people of the country, who alone can amend their Constitution according to its real theory and spirit, is by making the submission of these amendments to future Legislatures, to Legislatures to be elected after the amendments are submitted.

That is the effect of the amendment I desire to propose; to amend the joint resolution by inserting after the words" Legislatures of the States" the words" hereafter to bo elected."

The SPEAKER. That amendment would not be in order without unanimous consent, for that portion of the joint resolution has been agreed to by both Houses. Thatportion of the joint resolution is therefore beyond the power of amendment. It is only the portion upon which the two Houses have disagreed that can now bo amended.

Mr. WOODWARD. I very much wish the House would give unanimous consent to have such an amendment offered. The effect of it would be simply to make this appeal to the people of the country instead of to the Legislatures already chosen, without any reference to these amendments.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I cannot yield for an amendment.

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. Will the gentleman yield to me for a minute?

Mr. BOUTWELL, The gentleman asks for a minute. I will yield to him for two minutes.

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. In addition to the objection made by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Boittivku,] to the second section of tile Senate amendment in relation to the election of electors, there is another which I think should be undcrs ood by the House. As to Representatives in Congress, the Constitution reserves to Congress the power to regulate the times, places, and manner of their election. Iti this amendment in regard to electors the power is not reserved to Congress to prescribe "the places" of their election. In time of rebellion that would be an exceedingly important power, and one which Congress ought to have. 1 shall, therefore, vote to non concur in that amendment. It proposes to leave the national Government in a condition of dependence on the States, which hiay be fatal to our system. 1 wish to say farther that. I am a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, which reported the original proposition of amendment, though I was not present at the time it was considered in the committee. But I do not think that amendment went far enough in securing suffrage beyond the power of States to impose disabilities. I concur substantially in the proposition of my colleague, [Mr. Shellabarger,] and for which I voted in the House. But I believe that this whole plan of attempting to impose limitations upon State authority in relation to suffrage will prove inadequate, ineffectual, and a failure; and that there is no correct mode but for the national Government to take under its fostering care and protection the whole subject of citizenship and suffrage. We ought to have a constitutional amendment declaring that it shall be the right of every sane adult male citizen of the Republic, not guilty of infamous crime, forever to enjoy the elective franchise— the right to vote by ballot in convenient election districts—for every officer to be elected under the State or national Government.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. BOUTWELL. I now demand the previous question.

The previous question was seconded and the main question was ordered.

The SPEAKER. The first question is upon the motion of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bingham] to concur in the amendments of the Senate.

Mr. SCOFIELD. Are the two amendments divisible?

The SPEAKER. They are.

Mr. SCOFIELD. Then I ask that the amendment of the Senate with regard to suffrage be first voted upon separately.

The SPEAKER. The question will first be taken upon concurring in the amendment of the Senate with regard to suffrage. A twothirds vote is necessary to decide this question in the affirmative.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I call for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The first amendment of the Senate was to make the article in relation to suffrage read as follows:

Section 1. No discrimination shall bo made in any State among the citizens of the United St tos in the exercise of the cloclivo franchise or in the right to hold office in any State on account of race, color, nativity, property, education ororeed.

Sec. 2. The Congressshall have power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article. The question was taken; and there were— yeas 37, nays 133, not voting 52; as follows:

YEAS—Messrs. Axtell, Baker, Beatty, Bingham, Buokland, Sidney Clarke, Coburn, Cullom, Deweese, Dickey. Dockery. Donnelly, Eggleston, Unugliey, Heaton, Asahel "W. Hubbard, Ingersoll, Kitchen, George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence Nunn Orth Pile, Plants, Poland, Scofield, Shanks, Spalding, Stover, Thomas, Jolm Trimble, RobertT. Vaiifloi i Word, Welker, .James F. Wilson, John T. Wilson, and Stephen t'\ Wilson— 37

NAYS—Mossrs. Anderson, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Banks, Barnum, Boaimm, Beck, Benjamin, Benton, Blaine, Blair, Boutwell, Bowen, Boyden, Boyer, Bromwell, Brooks, Buokloy, Burr, Benjamin Butler, Roderick R. Butler, Callis, Cary, Chanler, Churchill, Reader W. Clarke, Clift, Cobb, Corley, Cornell, Covode, Dawes, jJrur s Edwards, Eldridge, Thomas D. Eliot, James X. Elliott, Farnsworth, Ferriss, Ferry, Fields, Fox, Glossbrenner, (love, Gravely Grover, Haight, Hamilton, Hawkins, lligby, Holman, Hopkins, Hotchkiss, Chester D. Hubbard, Hulburd, Hnmphrev, Hunter. Jenckes, Johnson, Alexander If. Jones, Thomas L Jones Julian, Kelley, Kellogg, Kelsey, Kerr, Ketcham, Knott, Koontz, Laflin, Lash, Loan. Loughridge, Lynch, Mallory. Marshall, Marvin, McCarthy, McCormiek, McKee M tier, Moore, Moorhead, Morrell, Mungen, Myers, Iwnvoomb, Newsham, Niblack, Nicholson, Noriis 0 Neill I Paine, Perham, Peters. Phelps. Pierce, Polsley, Pomeroy, Price, Prince, Pruyn, Randall, Raum, Robertson, Robinson, Roots, Ross, Sawyer, Shellabarger, Sitgreaves, Smith, Starkweather, Stewart, Stokes, Stone, Taber, Taffe, Trowbridge, Twichell, Upson, Burt Van Horn, Van Trunin, Van Wyck, Cadwalader C. Washburn, Hoary I"). "Washburn, "William B Washburn Whittemore, William Williams, Windom, Wood, Woodward, and Young— 33

NOX1 VOTrXYi—Messrs. Adams, Allison, Ames, Archer, Arnell, Bailey, Baldwin, Barnes, Blackburn, Boles, Broomall, Cake, Cook, Delano, Dixon, Dodge, Eckley, Ela, French, Garfield, Getz, Golladay, Goss, Griswoid, Halsey, Harding, Hill. Hoopor, Richard D. Hubbard, Judd, Lincoln, Logan, Maynard, McCullough, Mercur, Morrissey, Muilins, Pettis, Pike, Schenck, Selye, Stevens, Sypher, Taylor, Tift, Lawicnce S. Trimble, Van Aeinam. Van Auken, Vidal, Elihu B. Washburno, Thomas Williams, and Woodbridge—52.

So (two thirds not voting in favor thereof) the amendment was not concurred in.

The SPEAKER. The question recurs upon concurring in the remainder of the Senate amendments.

The amendments were not concurred in.

The SPEAKER. The question now recurs upon the motion of the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Boctwell,] that the House non-concur and ask the appointment of a committee of conference. This question can be decided by a majority vote.

Mr. WOODWARD. I rise to suggest a question of order. I submit that this is not a non concurrence that can go to a commit; of conference. I submit that this is not a proper case for a committee of conference; that it is not ordinary legislation, but is an extraordinary proceeding under the Constitution of the United States; and when the two Houses have not concurred in submitting the same constitutional amendment, there is an end of the amendment. You have no power to send it to a committee of conference, and therefore I object to any such proposition being entertained. I submit that the House has now, by a vote of non concurrence made an end to that amendment, because the language of ths Constitution is mandatory that amendments shall be submitted to the States only when two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary. I was about to add, and it is all I have to say, that a conference between the two Houses is a legislative invention. It is a part of ordinary legislation. A conference committee stands in the place of both Houses, and when a report comes from such a committee the only question is upon concurrence or non concurrence. Full power over the subject is given to them. They may make new amendments, and all we can do is to assent or dissent. That is proper in the ordinary course of legislation, but I submit to the Speaker and the House that the framers of the Constitution never meant that the fundamental law should be subjected to that process. There is nothing in the text of the Constitution and nothing in the history of the country justifying any such thing. I submit, therefore, with deference to the Speaker, that there can be no committee of conference in reference to an amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

The SPEAKER. As this is a new question, the Chair has indulged the gentleman from Pennsylvania in a full statement of his point of order. The Chair sustains some part of it, and overrules the remainder, and he will state his reasons for so doing. The gentleman makes the point of order that a proposed amendment to the 'Constitution is an extraordinary measure of legislation, and therefore the rules of the House do not apply to it. The Chair overrules that point of order, not by parliamentary law, not by the Digest, but by the language of the Constitution itself. Section five of article one provides:

“Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings. punish its members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member."

Under that provision of the Constitution the House has adopted certain rules; and on page 67 of the Digest it is provided that there may bo committees of conference in all cases of difference of opinion between the two Houses. I will read the exact language:

It is on the occasion of amendments between the Houses thatconferericesare usually asked; but they may be asked in all cases of difference of opinion between the two Houses on matters depending between tliem."

It is further provided, on page 68, as follows: "In the case of disagreeing votes between the two Houses, the House may eitherrecede, insist, and ask a conference, or adhere, and motions for such purposes take precedence in that order."

The Constitution declares that each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, &c., and under that the House has adopted a rule that in all cases of difference of opinion between the two Houses conferences may be asked. The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

The amendments of the Senate were nonconcurred in.

Mr. BOUTWELL moved to reconsider the vote just taken; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.