Mr. TRUMBULL., Yes, sir; I will give the Senator the date of the law. It is the 3d of. March, 1863. It was passed nearly 4 years ago, and the origin of this law was the inconvenience that was found in the HoRep in its organization by having no means Prescribed for calling it together. This is a preliminary proceeding. The House has to get together in some way. Some persons must be treated as members in the 1st prelim inary proceeding. A mob from the street cannot come in and control. Hence it has been the custom, either under direct provision of law or without that provision, for the Clerk of the former House to call the names of the members. Some difficulties had arisen, as we all know, in this preliminary organization, and all parties thought it better to provide that a list should be made up in some form. It settles nothing except to enable the House to get together and proceed to take the preliminary steps for its organization. The Senfrom Kentucky is astounded at that and thinks there is some “cat under the meal” that is going to destroy the Constitution of his country; he has taken alarm and is opposed to this because the Republican majority of the Senate has brought it in. Sir, it is not brought in by the Senate at all, neither by a Republican majority nor by any other majority, or a minority; it is a bill which came here from the other House. And now how does this bill differ from the Present law? The 1st section is preecisely the same, as the Senate will see, word for word, in Prescribing the duties of the Clerk, except that it contains a clause providing that the Clerk shall only put upon his list, members from States which were rePresented in the preceding Congress. Has the Senfrom Kentucky any objection to that? Does he want the great question as to what States are entitled to be rePresented to be settled by the Clerk? Is he not willing that Congress should determine that question? His opinions may be one way and mine another; but would he devolve that upon the Clerk? Would he not leave that to be settled by the Houses themselves? Does he want to produce anarchy and confusion in the organization of the House? What is he after? This is a transcript of the Present law with that single exception. The 2nd section of the bill provides that in case the Clerk is unable to perform this duty, by reason of sickness, death, absence, or for any other cause, some ether person shall have authority to call the roll. Will not the Senfrom Kentucky have it done by anybody? Is he not willing that the law should Prescribe somebody to call the roll, or does he want conand confusion? fusion and anarchy and misrule? The HoRep have said, if the Clerk is unable to attend to it, the Sergeant at Arms shall attend to it; and in case of his inability, the Doorkeeper; and has the Senfrom Kentucky any objections to that? Perhaps some other officer might have been provided; but the House thought proper, in their judg: ment, to devolve it upon these two. Somebody has to do it to prevent confusion. Is it not better to determine in advance who shall do it? This is all that there is in the bill, and I hope that the Senate will pass it.