entered I waive any right to object to the vote being reconsidered because the motion to reconsider is out of order at this time.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair does not think the Senator loses his right to object by the entering of the motion to reconsider.

Mr. POWELL. I only want to know that I shall have a right to make my objection to-morrow as well as to-day. I think, under the 20th rule, no motion to reconsider can be entertained in this case.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator may call the attention of the Senate to the time at which the motion is made.

LEGISLATIVE, ETC., APPROPRIATION BILL.

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 649) making appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the year ending the 30th of June, 1866. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on the motion of the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. SHERMAN,] to amend the bill before the Senate by adding to it the deficiency bill. The reading of the amendment will be dispensed with unless called for by some member, and the question is on its adoption.

Mr. HALE. Omitting the clause in dispute, I suppose.

The PRESIDINGOFFICER. That is omitted. Mr. SHERMAN. It is precisely the deficiency bill as agreed upon by both Houses, omitting the disputed clause.

Mr. SUMNER. Before that is done, I merely wish to call the attention of the Senate to the nature of the possible controversy in which they are about to embark.

Mr. COLLAMER. We have insisted on that. Mr. SUMNER. Will the Senator have the kindness to hear my statement.

I understand that the motion of the Senator from Ohio is to add, by way of amendment, the deficiency bill to the bill now pending.

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes, sir, that is it precisely. Mr. SUMNER. I take it the motion is without precedent in this body. On that account it perhaps may be open to criticism. But if you look at it in other aspects, if you look at it on its merits, perhaps you may see some occasion to hesitate, at least. I think you will find that from the beginning of our Government all the great appropriation bills have been originated in the other House. The Senator from Vermont, I see, shakes his head. I am simply calling attention to a historical fact. The language of the Constitution is rather general. It says:

"All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills."

I know very well a question has been raised as to the interpretation of the words, "all bills for raising revenue," and it has been argued that those terms are exclusively applicable to what we sometimes call tariff bills; and we are reminded that appropriation bills are originated in the Senate. To a certain extent that is true; but none of the great standing appropriation bills are originated in the Senate. When this subject was examined in the Senate some eight or nine years ago, after a two days' debate the Senators who were then here will remember very well the conclusion was that the Senate never had undertaken to originate one of the great appropriation bills; the traditions of the Government were all against it. Mr. Seward, who was at that time in this body, made a very elaborate speech in reply to Mr. Hunter, who brought forward a resolution affirming that the Senate might originate appropriation bills. I remember at the time I took some part in the discussion.

Mr. FOSTER. If the Senator will allow me, it was not a resolution; it was a bill.

Mr. SUMNER. I beg the Senator's pardon; it was a resolution.

Mr. FOSTER. I beg the Senator's pardon; it was a bill.

Mr. SUMNER. I have looked at the debate within a few days.

Mr. FOSTER. I have not, but my recollection is very distinct about it.

Mr. SUMNER. If the Senator has looked at the debate within a few days, I will defer to him. Mr. FOSTER. I have not looked at it for

years; but I know we passed an appropriation || bill and sent it to the House. The Senator is right in regard to the speeches about it, but I think there was no division taken when the bill was passed. Mr. SUMNER. What I refer to is a resolu

entiously, or for any reason, to any item of an appropriation bill, to abandon that item. That has been the custom and the practice. The House now insists upon passing a provision for their clerks and employes that they admit to be in vio

Mr. SHERMAN. What was it about? Mr. SUMNER. It was a resolution, reported by Mr. Hunter from the Finance Committee, that the Senate would undertake to originate appropriation bills.

Mr. FOSTER. And we passed the bill. Mr. SUMNER. Passed the resolution, I say. Mr. FOSTER. We passed the appropriation bill reported by Mr. Hunter, the chairman of the Committee on Finance. We passed, I think, more than one of the regular appropriation bills, and sent them to the House.

Mr. SUMNER. What did the House do? Mr. FOSTER. The House kept it, passed a similar bill, and then we repassed it.

Mr. SUMNER. Then what became of the Senate bill?

Mr. FOSTER. The House laid it on the table. Mr. SUMNER. They treated your act as null and void.

Mr. FOSTER. They laid it on the table, took it up again in another form, passed it, sent it to us, and we passed it.

is pledged to pay this sum of money. We can only say, in reply to that, that the law forbids them paying it; that we cannot enter upon that subject without setting a dangerous example-we must make the same provision for our own empioyés; we must make the same provision for the employés of the Departments and of the Army; we cannot enter upon this matter; it is unwise to do so. That is the deliberate judgment of the Senate, and upon that judgment we stand. Now, shall we be forced to agree to that which our judgments condemn merely to provide for a public exigency? I do not say that I would not in the end yield this point, although I do not think I shall.

There was no other resort, then, but to move this as an amendment to an appropriation bill. The Senator is mistaken in supposing this is without precedent. There are many laws and many appropriation bills which in the second section contain deficiencies. The general appropriation bill of 1862 contained a section which provided for deficiencies, and there was no deficiency bill passed that year. Formerly, I will say to the Senator from Massachusetts, it was the practice of the Government always to add the

Mr. FOSTER. I beg the Senator's pardon. Mr. SUMNER. It is all right. I am obliged to him for the interruption.

to the geneal appropriation bill; that has been a common practice, and by referring to the statutes the Senator will find many examples.

But the Senator says the Senate cannot originate an appropriation bill. We do not propose to do so in this case. The House sends us a bill

us

Mr. SHERMAN. The Senator warns against embarking in a controversy with the other House; but let me ask him this question: what shall we do with the deficiency bilt? Shall we allow it to fail, and thus refuse to pay for the support of the sick and wounded soldiers now in the hospitals? The deficiency bill contains appropriations for the transportation of the Army and Army supplies, and money is now needed from that fund to pay the expense of transporting the corps lying within reach of this city to its proper military destination. Several of the funds in the War Department are exhausted. The Senator tells us we must not have a controversy with the House. The House will not allow us to provide the ordinary appropriations for the Army, unless the Senate will agree to pay what is prohibited by law. The occupant of the chair [Mr. CLARK] has already dwelt enough on that subject. Shall we let the deficiency bill fail, or shall we be compelled to vote that which our consciences disapprove? There is but one of two ways. We must pass this deficiency bill in some form, if possible. That is a public duty. We cannot separate in Congress until we do it, or if we do, we shall be called back again to complete our duties.

Now the question occurs, shall we yield to the House this point in controversy, or shall we take some other mode of passing the deficiency bill? If we yield to the House, we agree that the House may, against our will, take money from the public Treasury, in violation of a plain law, without our consent. It seems to me the Senate ought not to be placed in that position. The rule is clear that every appropriation in an appropriation bill must be assented to by both Houses, and the Senate and the House have always acted upon the idea that where either House objects consci

The Senator has confounded this subject with a controversy that is familiar to me, because I was then a member of the House and took part in it. The Senate undertook to pass a loan bill. That was in 1857 or 1858, shortly after our financial difficulties. It was claimed in the House of Representatives that that was a revenue bill. The Senate, however, insisted that a loan bill was not a revenue bill; and they produced several historical examples. It appeared that in the war of 1812, the Senate had originated a loan bill. It appeared that in the Mexican war the Senate had originated a loan bill. The House, however, insisted upon it that a loan bill was a bill to raise money from the people by loan, and therefore a revenue bill. The controversy grew up on the loan bill, and not on an appropriation bill.

I do not remember in my legislative experience that the House ever contested the right of the Senate to originate an appropriation bill. An appropriation bill is not a revenue bill in any sense. It is for carrying into execution existing laws, and to set aside and appropriate money for that purpose. It is not included in any definition that has ever been given to the term "revenue bill," because it has been exercised very many times. Almost every bill introduced into the Senate appropriating money for a private claim is an appropriation bill. The Senate every day introduce bills to pay five, ten, or twenty thousand dollars to this man or that man, and no one ever objects. I do not think there is the slightest doubt upon the point made by the Senator from Massachusetts. Probably one half the bills introduced into the Senate of the United States contain appropriations of money. If we have a right to appropriate $5,000 for the payment of a private claim, we have a right to pay $10,000,000 to pay the legislative expenses of the Government. There can be no distinction drawn between appropriation bills. An appropriation bill is not a revenue bill in the sense used in the Constitution.

The mode now adopted by the Committee on Finance was the only expedient left. We must provide for this deficiency, and we must do it B000. The public exigencies demand it. We must either, therefore, make up our mind to defeat the deficiency bill entirely, to yield the point that is controverted by the House, or else to make another attempt to provide for this deficiency by an amendment to the legislative bill. It is the only course left us; and it seemed to us so plain that we did not expect there would be any controversy or dispute about it.

Mr. WILSON. I think, Mr. President, that Congress presents to the country to-day a strange spectacle. We owe our armies millions of dollars. Many of our soldiers have not been paid for months. Many of our officers are unpaid, and have been unpaid for months. Many of them have put in the hands of their commanding officers their resignations and are imploring the Government to accept their resignations, for the reason that their families are suffering at home while they are not paid even what the Government owes them, and that is not enough to support them and their families. This is the condition of our soldiers; this is the condition of our officers. Millions are wanted to pay them, and we have not the means to do it as rapidly, at any rate, as we ought to do it.

Mr. SHERMAN. The Senator from Massachusetts, from the high position occupied by him, might convey to the country a very erroneous idea by his remarks.

Mr. WILSON. I do not intend to convey to the country a false impression. I can go a great deal further than I have yet gone.

Mr. SHERMAN. There is no deficiency in the appropriation for the pay department. There is ample for the current fiscal year.

Mr. WILSON. There is no deficiency in appropriations, but there is a deficiency in the money. That deficiency is what I am talking about. I was speaking of the want of means to carry out the laws, to pay our soldiers what we have agreed to pay them; and I say we want at once tens of millions of dollars for that purpose.

And now, sir, when the nation is struggling for the means to carry itself through this rebellion, we have an issue made here in Congress to increase the compensation twenty per cent. of a class of men who deserve it less than any other men in the employment of the Government. Here are women in this city working for six or seven hundred dollars a year who ask you to increase their small compensation; here are clerks working from morning till night all the year round, who ask you to increase their compensation, and you refuse to do it; and why? Because you have not the means to do it. You need more money than you can obtain to pay your just debts and to pay what we have already agreed to pay. In the face of all this--and I hope the country will note itin the face of the fact that we owe tens of millions to our brave soldiers, many of whom have not been paid for many months; in the face of the fact that the officers of our armies are sending in their resignations, and some of our generals hold them by the handful, asking to be allowed to resign that they may go home and take care of their suffering families; in the face of these facts, that we cannot help, or do but little to relieve by reason of the financial condition of the country, we have a contest and an issue raised here in Congress by one branch of this Government, in violation of the laws of the country, to increase the compensation of their employés twenty per cent. It is utterly and wholly indefensible. I do not shrink from a contest on that issue. I welcome the contest here and before the country, if they choose to make it.

I say, sir, the fact as it stands before us and before the country to-day is not creditable to the Congress of the United States, and I hope the Senate will stand firm, put this amendment upon the bill, and stand by it. If gentlemen anywhere choose to make an issue before the country about increasing the compensation of well-paid officers employed here about ten months in two years when we have not the means to increase the compensation of men who do not receive enough now to support their wives and children at home while they are suffering, fighting, bleeding, and dying for the country, let them make that issue before the country. I welcome the contest.

Mr. JOHNSON. Upon the question of power,

about which the honorable member from Massachusetts

Mr. SUMNER. The question of usage, not of power.

Mr. JOHNSON. The usage as evidence of the want of power. I was about to say I did not understand the Senator to say that in his own opinion there did not exist a power in the Senate to pursue the course which it is now proposed to pursue. The origin of this clause of the Constitution was evidently taken from a clause of the same description existing in the English Government with reference to the respective privileges of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The House of Commons, which has always, from the beginning of their Government up to the present time, been exceedingly jealous upon this subject, will not permit the House of Lords to amend a money bill of any description in the slightest particular; and it has operated very prejudicially in a great

many instances. The suggested amendment, which is often necessary to give effect to the bill as it comes from the House of Commons, is sent down to the House of Commons to be there acted upon; and that produces great delay. The reason why the House of Commons has always claimed that particular privilege is stated by Blackstone. It is not necessary to trouble the Senate by reading what Blackstone says on the subject. Mr. Justice Story does not even approve of the extent of the doctrine as it exists in England, and he tells us in the eight hundred and eightieth section of his Commentaries-I cite the section because the editions are not uniform:

880. What bills are properly bills for raising revenue,' in the sense of the Constitution, has been a matter of some discussion. A learned commentator supposes that every bill which indirectly or consequentially may raise revenue is, within the sense of the Constitution, a revenue bill. He therefore thinks that the bills for establishing the post office and the Mint, and regulating the value of foreign coin, belong to this class, and ought not to have originated (as in fact they did) in the Senate. But the practical construction of the Constitution has been against his opinion. And, indeed, the history of the origin of the power already suggested abundantly proves that it has been confined to bills to levy taxes in the strict sense of the words, and has not been understood to extend to bills for other purposes, which may incidentally create revenue. No one supposes that a bill to sell any of the public lands or to sell public stock is a bill to raise revenue in the sense of the Constitution. Much less would a bill be so deemed which merely regulated the value of foreign and domestic coins or authorized a discharge of insolvent debtors upon assignments of their estates to the United States, giving a priority of payment to the United States in cases of insolvency, although all of them might incidentally bring revenue into the Treasury."

But in this particular amendment, as the Senate is aware, there is nothing at all about which there exists any difference of opinion; and the only question then is, whether, as this amendment makes a provision which the honor of the country and the safety of the country, what is due to those in the field as well as what is due to those in the councils of the country in every Department of the Government is involved, the House will hesitate a moment in accepting the amendment? I have no doubt-indeed it would be discourteous and wrong to reflect upon the conduct of the House-they are just as patriotic as we are; they are just as anxious to preserve the true honor of the country as we can be; and they are just as unwilling to trespass upon the constitutional rights of the Senate or to enlarge their own, as we are to trespass upon their rights or to enlarge our own. But in relation to this particular amendment there can be no difference as concerns either subject, because both branches admit that the amendment as it stands is all right.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. President, I am not satisfied of the propriety of the amendment proposed by the Senator from Ohio. I believe he presents it from the Committee on Finance. I understand him to say that there are many instances in which the deficiencies of the Government have been provided for in general appropriation bills. I have one before me,

Mr. SHERMAN. passed in 1862.

Mr. HENDRICKS. A number of years ago, most of the objects of appropriation were provided for in a general appropriation bill called the civil and diplomatic bill. Subsequently a rule was adopted, or it became a usage, to divide up these objects of appropriation into several bills; and I will ask the Senator from Ohio whether, since tha: usage obtained in Congress, there is an instance in which the deficiencies of the Government have been provided for in any of the general appropriation bills.

Mr. SHERMAN. It has been done for the last three years consecutively. I have now a law before me, approved March 3, 1862. It is entitled "An act making appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the year ending the 30th of June, 1863, and additional appropriations for the year ending the 30th of June, 1862." The first section goes on and makes the ordinary appropriations, and the second section provides for deficiencies. That year we passed no separate deficiency bill. Both bills were put in one. There is one other case of that kind, I think.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I did not suppose there had been a recent instance of that sort in which such a usage had obtained; but certainly the usago is a proper one, to make the deficiencies the sub

So that a bill of this description might, upon the authority of Mr. Justice Story (and I speak knowingly when I say he is borne out by the usage) have been originated in the Senate; and if it could have originated in the Senate of course it would have been in the power of the Senate to make the appropriation suggested by the honorable member from Ohio, the chairman of the Com-ject of a separate bill. Deficiencies are not genmittee on Finance. One thing is very certain: whether it is a bill to levy taxes or not, we can amend it. If it be a tariff bill for the purpose of raising revenue, we can lower the amount proposed to be levied upon any particular article, or upon all the articles included in the bill, or we may raise the amount proposed to be levied, the power given to the Senate even in the case of bills to raise revenue being a power to amend as contradistinguished from a power to originate; but I have no doubt the Senate, with reference to the power of amendment, is wholly unrestrained even in relation to bills to raise revenue.

Now, in relation to the conduct of the House, I can hardly believe that, when they come to reflect upon the subject, they will, as matters now stand, continue their difference with the Senate. It is impossible, it seems to me, even if the nature of this amendment was not such as to address itself not only to the good sense, but to the patriotism and good feeling of the House, that they would continue a difference with the Senate in which they are so clearly wrong. If they have by what they did at the last session involved themselves in a matter of honor, it is not a matter of honor belonging to the House in its corporate capacity. The question is, whether they had the authority to do what they did. If in exercising an authority which they had not, they have involved themselves in any point of honor, it is an involvement which affects them individually, and it they wish to pay the money, they can pay it out of their own pockets.

erally received with favor in Congress. They ought to be considered upon their separate merits. The theory of the Government is that there should be no deficiencies; that the executive departments ought not to go beyond the appropriations, and therefore there should be no deficiencies. But, sir, since the war, the deficiency bills have been large; sometimes, I believe, between two and three hundred million dollars. I do not think they should ever have been so large. I concede that there will necessarily be some deficiencies, but I think the deficiencies ought to be provided for in a separate bill. We ought to stand by the usage in that respect.

But I wish to submit to the Senator having this particular bill in charge now, where there is a dispute between the two Houses, whether we ought to increase the differences between the two Houses. Does the Senator from Ohio suppose that the House will yield its point merely because this deficiency is tacked to a general appropriation bill? If the House is unwilling to yield the point upon the deficiency bill, have we a right to presume that it will yield it upon this bill? We not only endanger the deficiency bill, which ought, I suppose, to be provided for, but we endanger this entire bill. I am not willing, when there is a difference between the two Houses, to increase the embarrassment of the Government by adding this deficiency bill to a general appropriation bill,

I will say to the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. WILSON] I do not go so far as he does. I

THIRTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS, 2D SESSION.

am willing to yield very much to the House of Representatives; and if they stand upon this point of honor, and the public service requires these appropriations, I am not going to see inconvenience and suffering to the soldiers and those requiring the deficiency bill merely upon a question of $38,000. I have thought the Senate was right; I have voted with the majority of the Senate upon that question; but if the House understands that there is a point of honor between it and its employés, and will not yield it, I do not expect to stand up stubbornly, and say we will not respect what the House deems to be a point of honor. I have thought the Senate right; but certainly I am not going, as a Senator here, to vote persistently that the House shall not be gratified upon a question of that sort. To a reasonable extent, I expect to stand upon the position assumed by the Senate; but when we have gone as far as duty seems to require, then I am going to let the House take the responsibility, so far as my vote is concerned; and I will say to the Senator from Ohio, if his proposition carries, and we tack the deficiency bill to this general appropriation bill, and it goes to the House, and the House amends it, I expect to concur in the proposition of the House, and I think it is likely the Senator will find a good many Senators taking the same view of it.

Is it possible these two bills are to be lost upon a question of that sort? The House says it made this promise to its employés; it is a question of honor. They construe the law one way and we another; and are Senators prepared to say we will lose a very important bill, that we will allow embarrassment in the public service upon a question of that sort? I am not prepared to say that. I do not go as far as the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. WILSON] went in his very earnest remarks a few minutes ago; and I do not see that the passage or defeat of the appropriation bill has anything to do with the question that he discussed. He says it is a question of means; it is not a question of appropriationthe payment of the Army. Why have we not the money? The internal revenue measure is bringing as much revenue in the Treasury as was expected. I think the mistake is just here: the present Secretary of the Treasury (for whom I have the very highest regard) esteems it to be his duty to issue no more Treasury notes. I apprehend he will have to come to that. I suppose, while the war continues, especially during a period when we are largely increasing the Army, we will have to look to other means than the internal revenue and loans. I do not concur exactly in this notion that it is the highest political wisdom now to reduce the circulation in the country to any very great extent. That must be done very gradually. I think the interests of commerce require that the currency shall be kept reasonably within the present amount, and that the reduction shall be very gradual. But I do not intend now to discuss that, but to say that I think the proposition of the Senator from Ohio is not a pertinent one.

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1865.

isting embarrassments. It was on that account that I undertook a few moments ago simply to remind the Senate of the controversy that they were about to open. Senators about me shook their heads, and Senators reminded me that I was mistaken. I undertook to refer to a debate of some importance in which I took part myself, now some eight or nine years ago, and so far as I could, according to my memory, I undertook to state the occasion of that debate. The Senator from Connecticnt [Mr. FOSTER] again and again said that I was mistaken. I have since then sent to the library for the volume of the Globe. I have it before me. I was not mistaken. The debate occurred on a resolution brought forward by Mr. Hunter, the chairman of the Committee on Finance, on the 4th of February, 1856. Its consideration was postponed to a later day, and made, I think, a special order. It came up finally for consideration on February 7, 1856, and was in the || following terms:

Resolved, That the Committee on Finance be instructed to prepare and report such of the general appropriation bills as they may deem expedient.

I think it must have been during the winter of this resolution that the organization of the House was for a long time in suspense. My friend from Ohio (Mr. SHERMAN] can correct me on that point. I think it was.

Mr. SHERMAN. It was during what was called the Banks contest.

NEW SERIES.....No. 46.

rassments between the two bodies by introducing an additional occasion of difference.

Mr. SHERMAN. If the honorable Senator from Massachusetts had made the speech he has now made upon the motion of the honorable Senator occupying the chair, [Mr. CLARK,] it would have been pertinent to the case.

Mr. SUMNER. The Senator will remember that when he introduced it I objected to it.

Mr. SHERMAN. Before any action was had upon my amendment, and, purposely, because I did not wish to offer this amendment to this bill until there was no hope of an agreement between the two Houses on the deficiency bill, the honorable Senator from New Hampshire moved that the Senate insist on its amendment to the deficiency bill. It was not until the vote was taken upon that motion, and it was decided, so far as there was any appearance in the Senate, by a unanimous vote, that I offered, or asked, a vote on this amendment. There was no other course left. The Senate insisting on its amendment sent the deficiency bill back to the House with the disagreement continuing, and there was no other choice except between a defeat of the deficiency bill and putting it on as an amendment to this appropriation bill.

Now, I do not wish to get up any feeling between the two Houses; I do not wish to get up any controversy between the two Houses. I think the position of the House of Representatives is totally untenable, and I am satisfied that if they could understand it and discuss it and con

Mr. SUMNER. During what is called the Banks contest; and I presume, (though that has escaped my memory,) the occasion for the intro-sider it they would yield at once. Their posiduction of this resolution was that it was supposed that unless the Senate undertook to originate these bill there would not be time to act upon them. It was introduced. The first person who expressed himself with regard to the proposition was Mr. Seward, who made an elaborate speech, and one that I think will compare in its argument and statement with any that he ever made on this floor. It is within my recollection that it was a speech carefully considered in advance, as most of his speeches were, and that it was the result of mature study. In the course of that speech he makes the following statement; I read from the Globe for February, 1856, page 375:

"The practice of this Government from its foundation has been that general appropriation bills for the support of the Government have originated in the House of Representatives, and not in the Senate of the United States. The Government has been in operation since the year 1789, a period of more than half a century, and never yet has a general appropriation bill been prepared or reported or submitted to the Senate or sent to the House of Representatives from this body. On the other hand, the practice for this period of seventy years has been that all appropriation bills of that character have originated in the House of Representatives, and have been sent to this House for its concurrence and amendment.

"As this, then, is a proposition made, not only for the first time within our own experience, but for the first time since the foundation of the Government, we are to presume that it will be admitted that what is proposed is an innovation-a direct, specific, and effective innovation. Since it is an innovation, let us for a moment see what is the nature of it."

He then proceeds to consider the question historically and on principle, and toward the close of his speech proceeds as follows:

"I confess, therefore, sir, to an earnest desire, a strong desire, to retain for the House of Representatives the privileges and rights which it has exercised from the foundation of the Government until this day."

And finally, in another place, he says:

tion is simply that they will not appropriate for the Army and the Navy unless we agree to appropriate money from the national Treasury in violation of law. I have no reflection to cast upon them. It is a point of honor with them. They think that as they have by resolution voted this money to their employés, the Senate, as a matter of courtesy to the House, ought to allow the money to be taken and paid to the employés. That is their claim. But, sir, the House of Representatives are yet as much bound by the law as we are or any other branch of the Government. The law expressly forbids the House from doing what they attempted to do in this instance. If we must yield in courtesy to the House when they undertake to violate the law, we must also yield in courtesy to the President when he undertakes to violate the law; and if our national judiciary or any other department of this Government undertakes to violate the law, we must yield rather than make any controversy on the subject.

Here let me say to the honorable Senator from Massachusetts that in this whole controversy I have done no more than he. I have voted according to my conscientious convictions of duty on this question of extra pay; so did he; and we have voted together.

Mr. SUMNER. Certainly.

Mr. SHERMAN. But now, when it is manifest that this disagreement between the two Houses is likely to defeat the deficiency bill, the question comes up, is there any other way in which we can save that bill? I say there is. I say that in the form of an amendment to the legislative appropriation bill, we may again submit the deficiency bill to the House of Representatives. I cannot for a moment suppose that the House will renew the controversy by inserting in this bill the same old controverted matter. I do not believe they will do so. I shall be disap

the spirit of the Constitution of the United States in advis"I think then, sir, that I stand upon the principles and ing against the instruction which is asked for by the Com-pointed and chagrined if they renew the contro

In the face of this speech, the resolution of the Committee on Finance reported by Mr. Hunter was adopted by this body; and then, I believe, ensued what was mentioned by the Senator from Connecticut, that appropriation bills were introduced and passed through the Senate and sent to the House; but, sir, nothing came of them. They were simply a vain effort on the part of the Senate; vox et præterea nihil. In the face of that precedent, I submit to the Senate whether upon the whole it is expedient for us to add to the embar

versy in that way. We propose to them now an amendment upon which there is a concurrence of views, a bill that they have originated and passed, but a bill which, on account of the difference of opinion upon an independent matter, cannot be carried into execution as a law. We propose this bill as an amendment to a bill which has already been originated in the other House, and is now here for amendment.

The point made by the honorable Senator does not arise here. This pending bill originated in the House of Representatives. The Senate might

originate it. In the case referred to by him the House did not deny the power of the Senate to originate an appropriation bill. The Globe is before me. The Senate passed the appropriation bill in that case while the House of Representatives was in a state of disorganization and confusion. To avoid delay the Senate originated the bill; but just about the time when the Senate did soI think within a day or two of the passage of the bill by the Senate-the House became organized by the election of Mr. Banks as Speaker, and the Committee of Ways and Means, of which Mr. Campbell, of Ohio, was made chairman, was appointed, and then, within a very short time, the House in the usual manner originated its own appropriation bill; and that one which went from the Senate was simply laid upon the table, and nothing further was done with it. There is noth

ing in the debates on that occasion to show that any member of the House of Representatives denied to the Senate the power of originating appropriation bills. The reason for originating them in the Senate on that occasion ceased within a week of the time they were originated here, and they fell, and the bills were originated in the usual way in the House of Representatives, and assumed the ordinary form and came back to the Senate, and no objection, no controversy, was made between the two Houses.

In this case the bill now before the Senate has come to us from the House of Representatives in the usual form. We have made but very few amendments to it. We simply now propose to amend the bill by adding what the House have already agreed to. We do not make the proposition until there is no way that I am aware of to save this controverted matter, and to save the necessary appropriations for deficiencies. It is true the House may recede from its position on the deficiency bill, which has been acted on by the Senate, or may ask for another committee of conference. If it shall agree to the Senate amendment, the deficiency bill will be passed, and then this amendment to this bill will fail as a matter of course. I do not think this proposition now will complicate the matter. On the contrary, I believe it will enable the House of Representatives, without abandoning their position on the original deficiency bill, to assent to this amendment, and thus end the controversy. In that hope I offer it. Mr. FOSTER. I interrupted the honorable Senator from Massachusetts rather hastily. I did not mean to do it discourteously.

Mr. SUMNER. Not at all.

Mr. FOSTER. I wish to explain the reason. I understood that the honorable Senator from Massachusetts was making this point against the amendment proposed by the honorable Senator from Ohio, that it was in effect originating an appropriation bill in the Senate-the prerogative to do that belonging to the House of Representatives-and therefore it was contrary to the Constitution, and that it was without precedent in the previous legislation of Congress. The Senator alluded to an occurrence in this body some years ago, by way, as I supposed, of vindicating that position, the position being in effect that there was no precedent for such an amendment as that offered by the Senator from Ohio, either upon the House bill or as an original bill in this body. When, therefore, the Senator from Massachusetts went on to speak of that occurrence, and said that a debate arose upon a resolution regarding the power of the Senate to originate such a bill, and that the result was that the project was abandoned, given up, because

Mr. SUMNER. I had not got to the statement of what the result was.

Mr. FOSTER. The Senator says he had not got to the statement of what the result was, and therefore I was too hasty, because I supposed that when he said there was no precedent, he was not going to quote a case which showed there was a precedent.

Mr. SUMNER. I rather think I must have said that in the early and best history of the country there was no precedent. I think I said something like that.

Mr. FOSTER. My impression is that the Senator said broadly that there was no precedent for such an amendment as that offered by the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. SUMNER. Allow me to interrupt the Senator just there, for I surely intended to limit my

testimony in regard to the precedent to the date of that resolution, because I knew that at that date the subject had been carefully discussed, and it had been ascertained that before that there was no precedent.

Mr. FOSTER. I was, as I say, too hasty, because I supposed the Senator, after having laid down his proposition, was quoting a case to support it; and when he spoke of the resolution, I had in my mind the result at which the Senate arrived, and that was the passage of the bill. I was not, therefore, making the point that the Senator had asserted that the debate was on the resolution, instead of on the bill; the point I had in my mind was the point which the Senator had made, that the case here was without precedent. The Senator asserted that it was in regard to a resolution that the question arose. I said no, not in regard to a resolution, but in regard to a bill, my mind being on the important fact of the bill, not upon the unimportant fact of the resolution.

posed that he was making a point to show a precedent here in the Senate adversely to the action now asked by the Senator from Ohio, and therefore I said that the debate was upon the bill, and that the bill was passed and sent to the House of Representatives. It seemed to strike the Senator's mind as a novelty, and he asked what became of the bill. I said that I believed it was laid upon the table in the House; but that has nothing to do with the question whether the Senate, among its legislative privileges and prerogatives, has the power to originate an appropriation bill. What the House of Representatives may do with it has nothing to do with our power. We are to judge of that question. They, of course, are to judge of their constitutional rights and prerogatives. Each must judge for itself; neither for the other.

It is seldom that I am disposed to interrupt a Senator; and if I had but waited and heard the Senator from Massachusetts quote a precedent, not to establish his proposition but to contradict it, I should, of course, have been saved the trouble; but inasmuch as I supposed he was quoting a precedent to prove that the Senate had never exercised this prerogative and that it did not belong to us, I was disposed, not (as he understands, and as every one I hope would understand) offen

The Senator, however, quotes the Globe, and thinks that he has shown that he was quite right in regard to the fact that the debate was on the resolution. Well, Mr. President, as I said then, I spoke entirely from memory; but I have since furnished myself with the Journal, and I can complete now from the Journal the exact state-sively, to contradict his claim that there was a ment of the case as it occurred. I read from the Senate Journal for the first session of the ThirtyFourth Congress. The resolution was originally introduced by Mr. Brodhead, December 11, 1855. In that day's proceedings, I find:

"Mr. Brodhead submitted the following resolution for consideration:

"Resolved, That the Committee on Finance be directed to inquire into the expediency of reporting the appropriation bills for the support of the Government, or adopting other measures with a view of obtaining more speedy action on said bills."

Subsequently, on the 7th of January, 1856:

"The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution, submitted by Mr. Brodhead the 11th December, in relation to the adoption of measures for more speedy action on the appropriation bills; and

The resolution was agreed to."

On the 4th of February, 1856:

"Mr. Hunter, from the Committee on Finance, reported the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the Committee on Finance be instructed to prepare and report such of the general appropriation bills as they may deem expedient."

On the 6th of February:

"The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution submitted by Mr. Hunter, the 4th instant, to instruct the Committee on Finance to prepare and report such of the general appropriation bills as they may deem expedient; and "On motion by Mr. Hunter,

"Ordered, That the further consideration thereof be postponed until tomorrow at half past twelve o'clock, and be the special order of the day,”

On the 7th of February:

"The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution, reported from the Cominittee on Finance, to instruct the committee to prepare and report such of the general appropriation bills as they may deem expedient; and "After debate,

"The resolution was agreed to."

On the 5th of March, 1856:

"Mr. Hunter, from the Committee on Finance, reported a bill (S. 141) making appropriations for fortifications and other works of defense, and for repairs of barracks and quarters, for the year ending the 30th of June, 1857; which was read and passed to the second reading."

"Resolved, That it pass, and that the title thereof be as aforesaid.

"Ordered, That the Secretary request the concurrence of the House of Representatives therein."

There was an end of legislation on that one bill originating in the Senate, making appropriations for certain purposes, originating here after resolutions instructing the Committee on Finance to report such a bill; and the bill was passed unanimously, and sent to the House of Representatives. I had supposed that the Senator from Massachusetts was referring to the subject-matter of that debate, not to any particular portion of it. Whether the debate was on the resolution or on the bill, was not the point which I was making or supposed that the Senator was making. I sup

precedent to support his proposition. I repeat again that it was not on the point whether the debate was on the resolution or on the bill, but on the point that, so far from there being a precedent to sustain the proposition which he was supporting, the precedent was exactly the other way; and in this I think the Journal vindicates my own recollection, and proves it most distinctly.

Mr. SUMNER. I am very much obliged to the Senator for his explanation. His interruption at the time was entirely legitimate and most agreeable to myself. If the Senator, however, had listened perhaps more carefully to what I said, he would have seen there was no occasion for it. I was trying to develop the idea that in the best periods of our history and down to a very recent period there was no precedent for such an assumption of power on the part of the Senate, and I was proceeding to say that this subject was much discussed since I have been a member of the body on a resolution introduced by Mr. Hunter, of Virginia. It was then that I was interrupted by the Senator, who reminded me that the debate was not on the resolution but on the bill, and I understand the Senator now to assume that I was arguing that there never had been such a precedent in this body. By no means, sir. The Senator entirely misunderstood me. I was perfectly familiar with the precedent to which the Senator has referred, but then I beg to remind the Senator of the time when this precedent was set.

It was in the winter of 1856, when this very rebellion was beginning to brood, and when this Senate was under the reign of those very rebel chiefs who are now filling this land with blood. Sir, I do not consider a precedent under their auspices a proper precedent for us now; and, therefore, in the few remarks which I presumed to address to the Senate I began by confining myself to what I called the best periods of our history, meaning those anterior to the precedent on which the Senator from Connecticut now so confidently leans. Sir, I reject the precedent. A precedent which has for its author and originator Richard Brodhead, of Pennsylvania, and R. M. T. Hunter, of Virginia, is not a precedent for the Senate of the United States at this time, unless it can be sustained by principle and by the better history of our Government. Sir, I put it all aside; all that the Senator has read from the record goes for nothing, worse than nothing; for that very precedent only goes to illustrate those very usurpations on the part of the Senate under the lead of the slave power, of which we so justly complained in those dark days. Sir, I wish none of that darkness brought into the Chamber now. I prefer the long period of light beginning with the Republic and coming down to that very day when this rebellion began to brood in this Chamber.

Mr. FOSTER. I am certainly unwilling to add anything by way of prolonging this discussion. I may agree entirely in the Senator's opinion, that when we are pointed to any action as creating a precedent for this body, we should look to the times, and to the men acting in those times, and that there are some precedents to which

we should yield greater respect than to others. But, sir, when we come to the principle whether or not this body, the Senate of the United States, may or may not originate an appropriation bill, I must say that I conceive it to be a point on which men can scarcely differ.

Mr. JOHNSON. This is only amending it. Mr. FOSTER. To amend one is of course a more clear proposition, if there be any doubt about the first. That reasonable, sensible men should even differ on the question whether we may not originate an appropriation bill proper, I can scarcely believe. That power seems to me as clear as any one of the privileges which belong to this body. The Senator speaks of the better days of the Republic. Let me ask him to show in the better days of the Republic, nay, from the beginning down to this time, when that question was made and it was decided that the Senate had not that power.

Mr. COLLAMER. I desire to inquire whether It appears by the record that anybody presumed to ask for a division on the question in the Senate.

Mr. FOSTER. Not at all. There was no division asked on any vote taken on this question from the 11th of December, 1855, when Mr. Brodhead first introduced the resolution, down to the 9th of March following, when the bill was passed. Two resolutions were debated. I think the debate was confined to the honorable Senator from Massachusetts and an honorable Senator who was then in this body from New York, and who now holds the position of Secretary of State of the United States. I think those were the only two Senators who spoke in opposition.

Mr. GRIMES. There were a few remarks by Mr. Toucey.

Mr. FOSTER. Not by way of opposition. These two Senators, I believe, were the only ones who spoke in opposition to the power of the Senate. Mr. SUMNER. My colleague also.

enue.

Mr. FOSTER. There may have been others, but at all events there never was a division asked on any vote taken. All was by unanimous consent, as we pass resolutions and pass bills to which nobody objects. There was no doubt evidenced by a vote as to the power of the Senate over the subject. It is true that the Constitution restricts us from originating a bill for raising revOur Constitution follows the example in that respect of the British constitution, which gives to the Commons the power to originate money bills, as they are called in England, and denies that power to the Lords. That distinction, in this respect, exists in our Constitution between the Senate and the House of Representatives, not with any very good reason, as I apprehend. There is no principle in denying to the Senate the power to originate revenue bills; but our fathers judged it best that it should be so, and they put the prohibition in the Constitution, and therefore that power is denied us. But so far as the power to originate an appropriation bill is concerned, it is not taken from us, and not one sensible reason can be given why we may not exercise it as well as the House of Representatives. But if there were, as the honorable Senator from Maryland wel! suggests, when we come to amending even a revenue bill, the Senate has as much power, in that regard, as the House, and we can really make a new bill by what we put on to the House revenue bill; thus, in effect, therefore, can practically originate a revenue bill as well as the House.

All that it is proposed to do here by the honorable Senator from Ohio is to put on this bill the deficiency bill which has been previously passed by both Houses. It is true that it was passed by the House of Representatives with another clause to it, which other clause did not pass the Senate. Striking off the clause which did not pass the Senate, it is offered in that shape as an amendment to this appropriation bill; and the Senator from Massachusetts insists that this is a step taken which cannot be justified by the practice of the better days of the Republic; that it is an innovation dangerous to the liberties of the people, a usurpation of a prerogative not belonging to the Senate, and of dangerous example.

Mr. President, it is as dangerous to vote on a motion to adjourn as it is to vote on that proposition, and quite as much an infringement of the Constitation and of our prerogatives. Sir, it is not possible to raise a doubt on the question. About its policy, its expediency, men may differ; but as to

the right of the Senate, I repeat, it is not possible to raise a doubt.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I did not understand the honorable member from Massachusetts when he was up before as denying the right of the Senate to originate precisely such a bill as this amendment would be if it was before us as a bill originated here in the Senate exclusively. I speak it with due respect and the better reading of the honorable member from Massachusetts; but I never have heard the authority of the Senate to institute a bill of this description doubted by anybody. Whether it was advisable, looking to the character of the two Houses, that the Senate should exert that power was another question. By many it was supposed that it would be better that these bills should come in the first instance from the House of Representatives. There were many reasons why perhaps that usage should be pursued; but that the Senate had the power to do it if they thought proper to do it, and that there might be circumstances which render it proper that it should be done, has always seemed to me to be perfectly clear.

In the case to which the honorable member from Connecticut has referred, in which the proposition was introduced into the Senate by the late Mr. Brodhead, and was supported by the Committee on Finance and was supported by almost every member of the Senate, it is very clear that as the Senate was situated at that time and as Congress were at that time situated, it was very advisable that the power which the Senate was admitted to have should be exerted. From the peculiar condition of Congress, it was exceedingly doubtful whether the appropriation bills would be passed at all if the Senate waited until they were originated first and passed by the House of Representatives; and in order to serve the country, in order to preserve for the time our institutions, and to do justice to the many persons who were depending upon the appropriation bills, the honorable member then from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Brodhead,) with the assent of his colleagues on the Finance Committee, thought proper to introduce that resolution, and the Senate acted upon it.

Now let me say a word before I sit down in answer to the suggestion of the honorable member from Massachusetts, that the precedent established by those men who then controlled the Senate upon this subject is not one to be pursued. Why not? They are in arms, he says. Suppose they are; were they not educated men, experienced men, men who had been in the councils of the country for ages, and some of them very acute men, some of them very able men? And among others Mr. Hunter, with whom the President has recently been carrying on a quasi negotiation, was one among the ablest members that this body has ever had. He has sinned now, I admit; but, as I had occasion to say the other day, he was by those by whom he was surrounded much "more sinned against than sinning." He has been led astray, and is now, I have no doubt, if his heart could be read, in the condition in which he is most unwillingly. But my purpose is not to vindicate Mr. Hunter. My purpose is more specially to vindicate the memory of a man who is now dead, to whom I stood in the relation of

friend for years before his decease, Mr. Brodhead. Why not follow a precedent that Mr. Brodhead had anything to do with establishing? He was a lawyer of very respectable ability. He was a patriotic man, exceedingly patriotic; and I say in justice to his memory-and it may perhaps make his memory more acceptable to the honorable member from Massachusetts-that the honorable member himself was not more opposed to the course pursued by those southern gentlemen than the man whose memory he has unwittingly, as I think, aspersed. I speak knowingly when I say that Mr. Brodhead labored day and night to prevent the fatal course which those men thought proper to adopt, and from the moment that it was done, up to the last moment when he left this world, he continued not only to lament but to condemn it; and with all the respect that I may feel for the intelligence of the honorable member from Massachusetts, if Mr. Brodhead was not his equal in general literature, if because he was comparatively poor and had a family to support he was obliged to give his time almost as professional ability was concerned, high as I may esteem that of the honorable member from Massachusetts, Mr. Brodhead was at least his equal, and just as competent to decide upon the true interpretation to be given to this or any other clause of the Constitution as any member of this body.

I have said this, Mr. President, because, as I said just now, I stood in the relation of friend to a man who I know was patriotic; not because he agreed with me politically as to the manner in which the Government was to be administeredhe was a Democrat always; I never-but as far as his patriotism is concerned, from the moment when my acquaintance with him commenced up to the last moment that I saw him, which was a month or two before he died, his was as pure and perfect as the feeling can be in the bosom of the honorable member from Massachusetts.

Mr. SUMNER. I have no desire to protract this discussion, and I am sure that it has gone much beyond anything that I could have anticipated. I shall not follow the Senator from Ma-. ryland in the topics, personal or general, which he has introduced. I have no motive to enter upon any criticism of the gentleman to whom he has referred, but I was his associate in this Chamber, and I remember well his position on all critical questions of the time. Perhaps, on that account, I was more familiar with him than the Senator from Maryland. However, let that pass. I do not wish to add to the burden which may perhaps rest upon his memory. The Senator could say less of the other authority. I do not wish even to refer to him. I merely call attention to it to put it aside. I shall not follow the Senator.

Nor, again, am I disposed to follow the Senator from Connecticut in the graver topics which he introduced. I had already said enough perhaps to clucidate the idea which I tried to present. The Senator certainly has exaggerated what I intended to say; I did not intend to present the case as strongly as he makes me present it; and yet I am obliged to meet the Senator on one question. He says that the power of the Senate to originate an appropriation bill is beyond all doubt; nobody can doubt it. Why, sir, the records of this body show that it has been doubted, and by some of the most eminent Senators who have been here. I quoted the words of one of our most eminent Senators. He more than doubted it. Let me add, I more than doubt it. I know full well that the language of the Constitution is not perfectly clear; it is perhaps ambiguous; it requires interpretation; but I do know that there is an unbroken usage of this Government from its beginning down to 1856, and that is enough Even if there were a power in those ambiguous words of the Constitution, I should submit that it was perhaps lost by non-user. Senators know very well that a power that has not been used for more than half a century is a power that we might well hesitate to use. That is all that I wish to suggest.

for me.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I think that I concur in the views of the Senator from Massachusetts, that if we move to put the deficiency bill upon which the controversy has arisen between the Senate and the House of Representatives upon this appropri || ation bill, we shall raise another issue, and an