New York Daily Tribune

XXXVth CONGRESS—Second Session.

SENATE—WASHINGTON, Feb. 26, 1859.

Mr. HUNTER called up the Army Appropriation bill.

Mr. SLIDELL asked leave to make an explanation. He announced that he would make no further attempt to bring up the bill for the acquisition of Cuba. He said, at an early hour yesterday Mr. Wade of Ohio, having announced his intention to speak against the bill, took the floor and moved to adjourn. Referring to the rules.

Mr. SEWARD here desired the Senator to understand that the rules he spoke of were made for the oppression of the minority.

Mr. SLIDELL—After the Sergeant-at-Arms had been directed to request the attendance of absent Senators, an appeal was made to the Senator from Ohio, which was not responded to. The Senator from Maryland then addressed the Senate at some length on the bill. At 8 o'clock, a large quorum being present, Mr. FESSENDEN called Mr. Slidell to order. He was not speaking on the subject before the Senate.

Mr. HUNTER at Mr. Slidell's request, temporarily withdrew his motion, and permitted Mr. Slidell to go on.

Mr. SLIDELL resumed, and said: It is proper to state to the Senate why I shall make no further attempt to bring up for consideration the bill to facilitate the acquisition of Cuba by negotiation.

At an early hour yesterday, the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Wade) took the floor, and having previously announced his intention to speak on the bill, moved to adjourn, which was negatived by a decided majority.

No quorum voting on my motion, the Sergeant-at-Arms was directed to request the attendance of the absent Senators. An appeal was then made to the Senator from Ohio and others of the Opposition, who were known to be prepared to speak to continue the debate with the assurance that a quorum would soon be present many Senators having left the Senate with a declaration of their intention to return by 8 o'clock.

The appeal to the Senators to proceed with the debate was unsuccessful, but the Senator from Maryland spoke at considerable length. When he had concluded a large quorum was present. Still the Senators on the other side, who, it was asserted, had many speeches in reserve, refused obstinately either to speak or vote upon the bill, and evinced a determination, by a series of dilatory maneuvers, to prevent any final action on it—a determination which, under the very defective rules of the Senate, it was entirely in their power to carry out. The Senator from Mississippi—a supporter of the bill—then moved to lay it on the table, at the same time declaring that he should vote against his own motion, his object being to obtain a test vote.

This resulted in the Senate refusing to lay the bill on the table by a vote of thirty to eighteen, thus establishing a clear majority of twelve in favor of the principle of the bill—a result that would not have been changed had the Senate been full, as the absentees had generally paired off. Under these circumstances I made a motion to adjourn, satisfied that the bill could not be pressed to a vote unless by the sacrifice of the appropriation bills, thus creating the necessity of an extra session. On consultation with many friends of the bill, they have generally concurred in the opinion that it would be injudicious again to call it up, considering that the sense of the Senate has been expressed with as much distinctness as if there had been again present the bill on the first day of the next session, where it can be introduced under the rules.

I give notice, however, that I shall again present the bill on the first day of the next session, where it can be introduced under the rules.

Mr. FESSENDEN (Me.) denied that the minority had factiously refused either to speak or vote on the bill.

the same effect, as did also Mr. WILSON, who mentioned that he had remarks to offer on the proposition he yesterday introduced.

Messrs. WADE, CLARK and others declared to

New Jersey. JONES, BRIGHT and DAVIS, who were absent when the vote was taken—that they would have voted with the majority.

The Army Appropriation bill taken up in the Committee of the Whole.

The subject was then dropped, and the Army Appro-

priation bill taken up in the Committee of the Whole.

The act appropriates for the recruiting service $90,000; for pay of the army, $3,091,784; for clothing, $1,220,000; for subsistence in kind, $1,979,000; for regular supplies of the Quartermaster's Department, $1,500,000; for transportation, $3,000,000; for purchase of cavalry horses, $200,000; for hospitals, $96,000; for ordnance and armament, $100,000; for engineers, $50,000, for arsenals, $137,000; for miscellaneous object, about $200,000. Barracks are provided for

by special appropriation. The total army appro-

priation is $15,000,000.

After several hours' debate the main appropriations were agreed to as above.

Mr. DAVIS moved and carried, by a vote of 8 against an additional clause, appropriating about a million of dollars for fortifications. This, with a few minor amendments, sends the bill back to the House.

The bill was finally passed by Yeas 2, Nays 15.

Adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

The House agreed to the report of the Committee of Conference on the disagreeing amendments of both Houses to the Indian Appropriation bill.

Mr. FAULKNER (Va.), from the Committee on Military Affairs, reported a bill to protect timber growing on lands set apart by the United States for military and other purposes. Those who unlawfully cut or wantonly destroy standing timber are thereby subjected to a fine of $500 and a year's imprisonment.

The bill was passed.

Mr. NIBLACK (Ind.), from the Committee to Examine the Accounts of the late Superintendent of Public Printing, made a special report that Peter S. Duval of Philadelphia, late of the firm of Duval & Co., was examined some time since before that Committee. Among other things, he testified to the destruction in 1850 of the books of that firm, denied having ever employed agents or others to procure work for him from the Government, and having ever passed any per centum or bonus to any one for giving him work or procuring it for him. On these things he is pointedly contradicted by a subsequent production of the books, and by the testimony of Frederick Bourger, his late partner, and Horatio C. Howard, the late bookkeeper for the firm. By order of the Committee, Mr. Niblack reported these facts to the House, with a resolution directing the case to be certified to the United States District Attorney for the District of Columbia, for such action in the premises as the circumstances in his opinion require. The resolution was adopted.

The Post-Office Appropriation bill was taken up.

Mr. BLAIR (Mo.) unsuccessfully sought to offer an amendment giving Butterfield & Co. the selection of the overland route.

The House again voted on retaining the amendment reappropriating money for the construction of Post-Office Buildings. Agreed to by 31 majority.

The bill then passed by four majority in the same shape as it was heretofore rejected.

Mr. PHELPS (Mo.) asked leave to introduce a tariff bill from the Committee of Ways and Means.

Mr. McQUEEN (S. C.) objected.

Mr. PHELPS moved a suspension of the rules.

Mr. CRAWFORD (Ga.) denied that the Committee of Ways and Means had agreed to any Tariff bill whatever.

Mr. PHELPS (Mo.) sent up to the Clerk's table a resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means, authorizing him to report a bill for the modification of the Tariff: that Mr. Morrill be authorized to report a substitute, providing for a loan or other plan; and that any other Member may have an opportunity to offer an amendment to the same.

The resolution was

L, and Means. CRAWFORD

The House, by 66 to 5, refused to suspend the rules—a two-thirds vote being required—as follows:

YEAS—Messrs. Abbott, Adrian, Ahl, Anderson, Andrews, Arnold, Barr, Bennett, Bingham, Bishop, Blair, Ely, Boun, Bryant, Farnsworth, Burch, Case, Cavanaugh, Coffe.

Chopman, Clark (N. Y.), Clark (Mo.), Cochrane, Colfax, Cox, Covode, (rapin, Curtis, Davis (Md.), Davis (Mass.), Dews (Iowa), Dawes, D. & O., Niblack, Dunn, Durfee, Edie, Farnsworth, Fenton, Florence, Foley, Foster, (Indiana), Gillis,

Gilman, Glmer, Gooch, Goodwin, Granger, Grover, Grow, Haldeman (Pa.), Harlan, Harris, Hatch, Hickman, Hoard, Horton,

Howard, Boyer, Jewett, Owen, Judd, Keim, Kellogg, Kelsey.

Kuykendall (Ill.), Kilgore, Knapp (Mass.), Lancy, Leidy, Loomis, Lovejoy, Mallory, Marshall (Ky.), Mason, Maynard, Montgomery, Morrill, Morris (Pa.), Morse (Me.), Morse (N. Y.),

Murray, Olin, Palmer, Peter, Pettit, Phelps (Mo.),

Phillips, Pike, Porter, Pottle, Purviance.

Resa, Reagan, Randall, Rollins, Robbins, Roberts, Ross,

Royce, Sherman (Ohio), Sherman (N. Y.), Sickles, Stanton,

Stewart (Md.), Stewart (Pa.), Tappan, Taylor, Thompson, Troupka,

Underwood, Wade, Walbridge, Waldron, Walton, Ward,

Washburne (Wis.), Washburne (Ill.), Westburne (Me.), Whiteley, Wilson, Wood, Vorhees, Zollicoffer—(128.)

NAYS—Messrs. Atkins, Avery, Barksdale, Bocock, Bonham,

Boyce, Branch, Bryan, Burnett, Caskie, Clark (Mo.), Clingman,

Cobb, John Cochrane, Cocke, Comins, Craig (Mo.), Craige (N. C.), Crawford, Curry, Davidson, Davis (Ind.), Davis (Mass.),

Dowdell, Edmundson, Elliott, English, Etheridge, Faulkner, Garnett, Gibson, Good, Goodwin, H. (Ohio), Ha-

Aiken, Hill, Hooker, Hopkins, Houston, Hughes, Jackson,

Jenckes, Jewitt, Jones (Tenn.), Keitt, Lamar, Letcher, McKibbin,

Mr. (Queen), Michael, Marshall (Ill.), Miles, Millson, Moore, Morgan, (N. C.), Nett, Niblack, Nico. a. Pendleton, Peyton, D. Powell, Reagan, Ruffin, Rustbridge, Savage, Scales, Scott, Seward, Shaw (Ill.),

Shaw (N. C.), Shower, Singleton, Smith (Va.), Smith (Tenn.),

Smith (Va.), Spinner, Stallworth, Stephens, Stevens son. Thomas,

Taylor (La.), Vallandigham, Vance, Watkins, Winslow, Wood son, Wright (Ga.), Wright (Tenn.)—88.

The President transmitted a message returning with his objections the bill granting lands to the several States, "providing for colleges for the benefit of agriculture, and for the promotion of mechanic arts."

He says that, according to the report of the Interior Department, over six millions of acres will be required, which, at the minimum price for the same, will equal $7,500,000. This bill was passed at a period of great financial embarrassment, and should it become a law, the Treasury will be deprived of nearly all its income—which for the next year is estimated at $5,000,000 from that source. Should the thirty-three States enter the market with their land scrip, the public lands would necessarily diminish in value; and considering the many land warrants in the market, the Treasury would be deprived of so much revenue. Should the time ever arrive when the State Governments can look to the Federal Government to maintain their system of internal policy, the character of both will become greatly deteriorated; hence the two should be kept entirely distinct. Another consideration was, that if so much land was precipitated on the market it would benefit speculators to the injury of actual cultivators.

It was doubtful for the reasons stated, whether the proposed grant would conduce to the benefit of agriculture. The President argues that it was never intended by the framers of the Constitution, in authorizing Congress to make needful regulations in relation to the public lands, that the lands should be given away. He purposely avoids any attempts to define what portion of the public lands may be granted, and for what purpose to improve the value and promote the settlement and sale of the remainder without violating the Constitution. In this case he adopts the rule that "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."

Mr. MORRILL (Vt.) said the President has a right to express his opinion as to whether the bill was constitutional or not, and Members of Congress have the same privilege. The bill was not introduced as a party measure, and had received the sanction of men on all sides of the House. It was a measure near the heart of Washington; and yet the President has sent a message here to-day to strike down the bill, perhaps the only one proposed for the especial benefit of agriculture. The President has committed, if not a crime, at least a blunder. Mr. Morrill then briefly replied to some of the President's objections.

The question was then taken on the passage of the bill, notwithstanding the President's veto, to the contrary.

The result was: Yeas, 105; Nays, 96; and this not being a two-thirds majority, as required by the Constitution, the Speaker declared the bill rejected.

The House then went into Committee of the Whole on the Naval Appropriation bill.

During a discussion relative to Navy Yards, Mr. CLARK B. COCHRANE (N. Y.) said that that at Brooklyn was a political machine, and that if the Democratic party required such places they should support them at their own and not at the public's expense.

Mr. SICKLES (N. Y.) said the patronage of the Navy Yards was distributed under Opposition as well as under Democratic Administrations, and that the practice of rotating subordinates was initiated under President Taylor.

Mr. CLARK (N. Y.) regarded the Navy Yards as schools of pestilence and bribery, whence issue bands of mercenaries to destroy the political liberties of the people.

The bill was then laid aside, and the Senate's amendments to the Consular and Diplomatic Appropriation bill, and to the Invalid Pension bill, were severally acted on.

The Committee then rose, and the House concurred in the Committee's action on all the Senate's amendments.

There was no further action on the Naval Appropriation bill. Adjourned.