"The house request a conference after the senate has adhered to its amendments, to which the house had previously disagreed. It cannot be denied that the senate has a right to refuse such conference; a case exactly similar having been disposed of by the senate in 1827, as will be seen by the extracts from its journal which are appended to this report. (Vide Senate Document No. 57.) But the committee think it equally clear that such is not the usual and ordinary mode of proceeding in such cases. It is usually esteemed more respectful and more conducive to that good understanding and harmonious intercourse between the houses which the public interest so strongly requires, to accede to requests for conferences even after an adhering vote. Such conferences have long been regarded as the established and approved mode of seeking to bring about a final concurrence of judgment in cases where the houses have differed; and the committee think it unwise either to depart from the practice altogether, or to abridge it or decline to conform to it, in cases such as those in which it has usually prevailed. It should only be therefore, as the committee think, in instances of a very peculiar character, that a free conference invited by the house should be declined by the senate. The committee recommend the adoption of the following resolution:

Resolved, That the senate agree to the conference proposed by the house of representatives, on the subject matter of the disagreeing votes of the two houses, on the said amendments, and that three managers be chosen to manage said conference on the part of the senate.

Ordered, that the report be printed, and Mr. Webster, Mr. Poindexter, and Mr. Porter were appointed managers at the conference on the part of the senate. The house being notified, through the secretary, that managers were appointed on their part.

January 27, Senate Journal.

Mr. Webster, on the part of the managers of the two houses, reported, That they have agreed to recommend to their respective houses, the following amendment to the bill:

"Strike out all the bill from the sixteenth line of the printed bill, and insert

And be it further enacted, &c., That hereafter neither the senate nor the house of representatives shall subscribe for or purchase books, unless an appropriation shall be made specially for that purpose, and the sum of five thousand dollars is hereby appropriated, to be paid out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, annually for the purchase of books for the library of congress, in addition to the sum of five thousand heretofore annually appropriated for that purpose.

The report, at the instance of Mr. Webster, was laid on the table of the senate.

In the house of representatives, Jan. 27, 1834, Mr. Polk, from the managers on the part of the house, made a similar report to the foregoing, and the house went into committee of the whole. The committee of the whole agreed to said report, and the chairman so reported to the house, and on the question of concurring with the committee of the whole on the state of the Union, in their agree

ment to the report of the committee of conference, said report was rejected by the house, yeas 88, nays 108. A motion was subsequently made, to reconsider this vote, and was lost; whereupon, Mr. Wild, of Georgia, moved that the house recede from its disagreement to the said second amendment of the senate to the said bill, which was agreed to.

Feb. 9th. Mr. Franklin, the clerk of the house, informed the senate that the house had receded from their disagreement to the second amendment, and the bill became a law.

In this case, it will be perceived, that a committee of conference had convened, and jointly agreed to a report. In the senate, the report was subsequently laid on the table. The house, having resolved itself into committee, considered and agreed to the report, which was afterwards rejected, by a vote of 103 to 115, and then the house receded from its original disagreement, out of which originated the conference between the two houses.

7

PRECEDENTS OF ORDER.

It is in order to reconsider a vote of adherence of the house, to their disagreement to an amendment proposed by the senate, and after reconsideration, to add a new proviso; decided, Sept. 11, 1786. Printed journal, page 136, 137.

On an appeal from the decision of the chair, the vote being equal, the speaker gave the casting vote, which sustained the chair. Page 122, 124. May 31, 1790. Wednesday, April 14, 1802. Dec. 28, 1802.

Second Session. 2d Cong. Vol. 4. P. 260. 1802. A letter from the secretary of war was partly read. A motion to dispense with the reading the balance of the letter was decided to be out of order, and sustained on an appeal—yeas 62, nays 16.

The house decided, that when a question by yeas and nays has been put by the speaker, and the clerk has proceeded to the call, in consequence of which a vote has been given by any one of the members, and at the same time a member rises in his place to address the chair, it precludes further debate on the said question. Yeas 99, Nays 10. Jan. 5, 1809.

It was proposed, June 27, 1809, to add to a resolution "that the election held in Plymouth district, in November last, was legal and proper," the words "but not conclusive." The speaker decided it to be out of order, it being a substitute for a resolution under consideration; and that agreeably to the standing rules and orders of the

house-"No new proposition shall be admitted, under the colour of an amendment, as a substitute for the motion or proposition under debate,” and on an appeal the opinion of the chair was sustained.

Jan. 18, 1810. The house proceeded to consider the amendment reported by the committee of the whole, to the bill respecting the commercial intercourse between the United States, Great Britain, and France, and for other purposes; and the same, together with the bill, being again read at the clerk's table, it was moved and seconded, to strike out the fifth section of the bill, which the speaker decided to be out of order, until after the consideration of the amendments reported by the committee of the whole house. From this deci sion, Mr. Livermore took an appeal, and on the question "Is the decision of the chair correct?" it was determined in the negative.

Feb. 27, 1810. Mr. Gardenier of N. Y. was addressing the chair and was called to order by Mr. Eppes, a member from the state of Virginia. The speaker decided, that the range of argument taken by Mr. G. was irrelevant to the question before the house, and not in order. Mr. Gardenier had sat down, and being about to speak, after another member had risen and addressed the chair, the speaker decided that the member from New York had lost his prior right to the floor; and on an appeal, the decision of the chair was sustained. Yeas 77, nays 43.

April 4, 1810. The yeas and nays having been called over, on a bill before the house, it was sug,