the gentleman from Harford (Mr. Galloway)
a substitute for the original article ?
The PRESIDENT. It is submitted as an
amendment to, the amendment of the gentle-
man from Cecil (Mr. Scott.)
Mr. GREENE. What has become of the
amendment I submitted? It appears from
the Journal that my amendment was adopted
by a vote of 45 to 38.
Mr. STIRLING. That is so; and after it
was adopted, I moved an amendment as a
substitute tor it, which was adopted. This
morning the vote adopting my amendment
was reconsidered, and I then withdrew my
amendment. Does not that leave the amend-
ment of the gentleman from Allegany (Mr
Greene) as the subject before the House ?
The PRESIDENT. The Chair will state his
understanding of the matter. The original
amendment was the one submitted by the gen-
tleman from Cecil. (Mr. Scott.) To that
amendment the gentleman from Allegany
(Mr. Greene) submitted an amendment which
was adopted, and the question then was upon
the amendment as amended. Subsequently
the gentleman from Baltimore city (Mr. Stirling)
submitted a proposition in place of the
one which the House had inserted in the place
of the amendment of the gentleman from Cecil
(Mr. Scott,) and the House adopted it
thus disposing finally of the one submitted by
the gentleman from Allegany (Mr. Greene,
which was thus removed entirely from before
the House, The question this morning was
upon the amendment of the gentleman from
Cecil (Mr. Scott,) as amended upon the motion
of the gentleman from Baltimore city.
The amendment of the gentleman from Bal
timore city having been withdrawn, the ques-
tion now comes up on the amendment of the
gentleman from Cecil, which has never beer
disposed of by the House.
Mr. STIRLING. The gentleman from Cecil
(Mr. Scott) withdrew his amendment.
The PRESIDENT. The Journal does not so
record it. The chair must be regulated by
the Journal. The question now is upon the
original amendment proposed by the gentle
man from Cecil, which is susceptible of fur
ther amendment. And the amendment of the
gentleman from Harford (Mr. Galloway) is
submitted in the form of an amendment to
the amendment of the gentleman from Cecil
(Mr. Scott.)
Mr. DANIEL. The amendment of the gen-
tleman from Allegany (Mr. Greene) having
been adopted, it took the place of the amend
ment of the gentleman from Cecil, (Mr.
Scott.) The amendment of my colleague
(Mr. Stirling) which was submitted in place
of fiat of the gentleman from Allegheny,
having been withdrawn, does not the question
come up on the amendment of the gentleman
from Allegany, which I think was decide
yesterday to stand in place of the article orig-
inally reported by the committee. ' |
The PRESIDENT, If the House had not
substituted the proposition of the gentleman
from Baltimore city (Mr. Stirling) in place of
the one adopted on motion of the gentleman
from Allegany, (Mr. Greene) thus effectually
removing that proposition from before the
House, it would now he in order, as an amend-
ment to the amendment of the gentleman from
Cecil, (Mr. Scott )
Mr. GREENE. I would state that when
the amendment I submitted was» adopted by
the House, it being in the nature of a substi-
tute for the original article, and accomplishing
the object the gentleman from Cecil (Mr.
Scott) had in view, that gentleman withdrew
his amendment.
The PRESIDENT. . The Journal does not
mention that statement.
Mr. STIRLING. The Journal as printed
now reads:
" The original amendment submitted by
Mr. Scott, to wit :
" Strike out all between the word ' that'
in the first line, and the word ' every ' in the
third line."
Now the Journal stops, evidently showing
that there is an omission of something, and
that something is that the amendment of Mr.
Scott was withdrawn.
Mr. HEBB. I move to amend the Journal
by inserting after that portion which has just
been read by the gentleman from Baltimore
city (Mr. Stirling} the words " was with-
drawn by unanimous consent."
The PRESIDENT. If the amendment of the
the gentleman from Cecil ( Mr. Scott) be with-
drawn, it being the original proposition to
amend, and not disposed of by any vote of
the House, and all the others being amend-
ments to that amendment, all the amendments
necessarily fall with it,
Mr. STIRLING, How can the amendment
of the gentleman from Allegany (Mr.
Greene) be regarded as an amendment to
the amendment of the gentleman from Cecil,
(Mr. Scott) the one being a motion to amend
a portion of the original article', and the other
being a substitute for the entire article ?
The PRESIDENT. The one was submitted
as an amendment to the other. The Chair did
not feel called upon to decide whether it was
properly an amendment to the amendment
or a substitute for the whole article, but left
that for the House to decide, which it did by
receiving it and voting upon it. the Chair
would remark, however, that strictly speak
ing, there is no such thing known in parlia-
mentary law as a substitute for a pending
proposition. All changes made in a pending
proposition must be in the nature of amend
ments, by way of striking out a portion, or
inserting or adcling to it additional words, or
striking out a portion and inserting other
words in place of those stricken out. But in
that case there must always he left a portion
of the original proposition, if but one word |
