Mr. HENDRICKS. I was goin on to say that I had not read this report an of course do not present it as my own. I stated that it was the report of the gentlemen connected with that committee who dissented from the views of the majority. I have no doubt that the argument presented in that document will meet 516 approval of my judgment, because it is written by a very able Senator, with whose views on this subject I generally concur. Now, upon the otherquestion, if it be a.rule of this body that a minority cannot present a report, I presume the Senator will not object to its being presented, as he sayshas been the practice heretofore, as “the views ” of the minority of the committee who do not agree with the majority. I resume in that form he will not object, and i it has been the custom of the Senate to present it in that form I will so modify it. I 0 not want to depart from any use e of the Senate on a question of that kind. The Senfrom Maryland stated to me that he did not know the majority were going to report at the time they did, and that e'hnd not been able to complete his at that time. I think he wrote at least a portion of this report; how much of it he did not inform me, but he said he had not been able to complete it then. I presume his cage. ements were such that he could not do it. Ishonld think it very singular because a member of the committee was unable, by reason of his engagements, to complete a re art, that he should be denied a hearing be ore the body and the country of his views. This is I an important question, Mr. President. It is no ordinary question going to the country at this time. The majority or the pommittee have regarded it as an important question. They have thought it proper to present their views elaborately, not with the view of impressing the Senate with regard to the action it was about taking at the time, because that report was made to this body about the same hour at which we were called upon to vote on the proposed amendment to the Constitution; but I understand from the time it was presented, and the elaborate character of the report, that it was intended as a document to impress the judgment of the country quite as much as of the Senate. Now, sir, if it be intended that the country shall have the whole views of the committee upon the subject, and that there shall be a full discussion of the questions by the gentlemen of the Senate who have been connected with the investigation, there can be no objection to allowing this document to go upon the files of the Senate and to the country as the views of the minority. But if it be intended that there shall he the views of but one side of this question, and that the minority shall not be heard, then it is proper to object. Why object? A Senator of this body is a member of that committee, for whom all of us and the country have a great respect calm in his presentation of any views, courteous to the body, always dignified and logical, never introducing into his discussion of matters a partisan style, but always dignified and statesmanlike in the presentation of his views. Why then shall it he denied? If it is to be denied by the Senate upon the present occasion, I shall desire to withdraw the document rather than have it denied, and let him present it himselfwhen he comes back. But I think the Senfrom Illinois, upon reflection, will not.persist in his refusal to allow this to he presented as the 'views of the gentlemen who have signed it. It will then go to the country with the report already made. If it be not equal in the statement of facts and the force of its logic with the report of the majority, no hurt is done; but if it be a calm, fair, and able answer to the report of the majority, it ought not to be objected to. was not presented at the time that the other report was presented, because the Senator When the fact 18communicated to the Senate that it could not prepare it than, I think that the question of time ought nof to be presented.