The Speaker. The ‘Gentfrom Pennsylvania certainly does not understand the decision of the Chair or he would not have made the remark. The question was raised distinctly in 1803, Presicut to the House of in the Senate of the U.S., on a motion that the then proosed amendment should be submitted to the resident: “On motion that the ComEnrollBill he directedto presentto the POTUSfor his ii probation the resolution which has beenpassedby offi Housesof Congress proposing to the consideration of the Stato Legislaturesan amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. specting re the mode of electin President and VEEP thereof, it waspass in thenegative yea! 7, nays 23." On a distinct vote of 28 to 7, the Senate voted that the ComEnrollBill should not present the proposed amendment to the POTUS for his approval, and it was not presented to or approved by him. In 1798 a case arose in the SCOTUS. depending upon the amendment to the Constitution proposed in 1794, and the counsel in argument before the court insisted that the amendment was not valid, hot having been approved by the POTUS. The Attygen, Mr. Lee, in reply to this argument said: “Has not the same course been pursued relative to all other amendmentsthat have been adopted? And the case of amendments is evidently a substantiye act. Unconnected with the ordinary business of legislagtion and not within the polic or terms of invest the Presiderit with a qualified negative on the actsand resolutions of Congress." The court, speaking through Chase, Justice, observes: “There can surely be no necessity to answer that argument, The HORHUve of the President appliesonly to the ordinary cases of legislation. Ho has nothing to do with thin proposition or adoption of amendments to the Constitution." And the court would not hear an argument from the AttyGen on the point, it was so clear. The Chair has still another authority. During the last Congress a proposnion 0t amendment to the Constitution was submitted to the POTUS, Mr. Lincoln. It was sent back by him With the remark that he thought he had no right to Sign it officially, but inasmuch as it was presented to him he would sign it. Thereupon the followmg resolution was submitted to the Senate by the chairman of the ComJudiciary of that body, [Mr. Taun BULL:] “Ranked. That the article of amendment proposed by Congress to beaddedto the Constitution of the U.S. respecting the extinction of slavery therein. having been inadvcrtently presented to the President for his approval. it is here‘y declared that such approval was unnecessary to give effectto the action of Congress in proposingsai amendment.in consistentwith the former practice in reference toall amendmentsto the Constitution heretofore adopted and being inadvertently done.should not constitute a precedent for the future: and the Secretary is herebyinstructed not to communicatethe notice of the n proviil of said proosed amendment by the epresantativos." Upon that resolution Senator REVERDYJOHNSON said:. Now, the proposition is that no proposalby congressof an amendment to the Constitution although receiving the support of 2/3rds of bot i Houses of Congress, is to be submitted to the States unless the President shall approveit. That is not the case in relation to the other mode of proposing anicndments. There being 2 modes, and stated in the alt"ernative. the othermodeis: 'Or on the application of the Legislatures oftwo th“irds of the several States.’ What are Congress to do then? Suppose2/3rds of the States propose amondments, h as the President anythin to doWith that? all Will admit that he has not. as Congressanything to dowith that? All will admit that their sinizleduty then is an imperative duty tocall a convention. So that the whole objectof the clause.asitscemstome, is merely to begin n.modeby which the peopleshall have an opportunity of deciding whether the Constitution shall be amendedor not. But when. as is statedby the honorable chairman of the ComJudiciary, every amendment which has been adopted has been submittedto the States without having beenapproved by the President, and when the Supreme Court. at a time when it stood as high as it has ever stood at any time sinceits organization. refusedeyento hear an argument on the subJet t.supposing it to be too clear for discussion, it would seem to me that we ought to consider the questionassottled.“ And such was the decision of the Senate, which adopted the resolution of Mr. Tarm nvnii, without a division or even a call of the yeas&nays. The Chair will state in response to the remark of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. Jonxsox] that this is a parliamentary Ipoint. It is a question as to whether the l ComEnrollBill of this House, where the JtResolution proposing the amendment in question originated, should present the same to the President for his sig nature. hud the Chair has decided that such acourse of proceeding is not in accordance with the Constitution and the uniform. usage heretofore, except in the single case of the last Congress, when the proposed amendment abolishing slavery was submitted by inadvertence to resident Lincoln for his signature. Therefore an objection based specifically on that round could not be tacitly allowed by the C air as correct, and is not a valid objection to the consideration of this concurrent resolution at this time.