Library Collections: Document: Full Text

The Senate Reacts To Franklin Pierce's Veto

Creator:		n/a
Date:		May 4, 1854
Publication:		The Congressional Globe
Source:		Library of Congress

Previous Page Next Page All Pages



48		Mr. SHIELDS. I hope the honorable Senator from California will modify his motion so as to the consideration of the subject until two weeks from Monday. That may give us time to arrange both this measure and the other to which reference has been made. At all events, that allows little enough time.

49		Mr. GWIN. The resolution offered by the Senator from Ohio is, I believe, the most appropriate form in which a motion on this subject can be made; and I am, therefore, willing to accept it as a substitute for mine, leaving the day blank, so that the Senate can determine on what day they will consider the subject. Monday week suits me very well, because I want to vote on this bill and I intend to be here, but I may not be here two weeks hence. Or, I am willing to take up the subject now, and proceed to act upon it at once.

50		Several SENATORS. Say Monday.

51		Mr. GWIN. I am opposed to taking up the message on next Monday, because I wished to have the coming week devoted to another subject, which I think is of more importance than this. My object is to have action upon the Pacific railroad bill during the ensuing week. I am willing, however, to take up this veto message now, and act upon it immediately, or I am willing to agree that it shall be postponed to Monday week, or even to two weeks from to-day, though I prefer Monday week for the reason that I shall be here then, while I may not be here two weeks hence. I am anxious that the other question to which I have alluded shall be disposed of. That, certainly, is not affected by this veto, because the message approves the principle of donating lands for railroad purposes. I refer to the Pacific railroad bill which is under my charge. That bill has been before the Senate for a long time, and it is absolutely important to me that I should have early action on it.

52		I am ready to vote on the veto message now; I am prepared to act on it now, as much so as I shall be on Monday next. I presume that no discussion can take place upon it which will change a single vote here. We all know how we are going to vote now as well as we shall know hereafter. The very speeches that will be made on it can as well be made on the homestead bill when that comes up. I am anxious to progress with business; but I fear that if this subject be postponed until next Monday, it will become the political question of this session, and there is no telling when it will be decided. It will be mixed up with other questions, and thus business will be delayed. I am anxious to have it acted upon now, or to have it postponed, so as to give us longer time, in order to dispose of other important business.

53		Mr. SHIELDS. The Senator from California, I understand, has accepted the resolution of the Senator from Ohio, leaving the day blank.

54		Mr. CHASE. I have no objection to modify it, so as to leave the day blank. That is accepted by the Senator from California.

55		Mr. SHIELDS. Then, I move to fill the blank by inserting Monday, the 22nd instant -- two weeks from next Monday.

56		Mr. BELL. I should like to know from the Senator from Illinois, what is his specific object in moving this long postponement? Is it merely to take up and discuss the homestead bill, and pass it, if the Senate shall think proper to pass it? Is it proposed to postpone the consideration of the bill granting lands for the indigent insane, which the President has returned with his objections, for the purpose of ascertaining from the President himself, by his approval or veto of the homestead bill, what are his views of it? Is this postponement asked, in order that we may know what the opinion of the President is upon the homestead bill, before we proceed to reconsider the bill granting lands for the indigent insane? If that be the object, I have to suggest, that when the homestead bill comes up for consideration, it will most probably be pretty fully discussed in this body, and other business will be intervening occasionally, so that we cannot look for a final vote of the Senate on that bill in less than ten or twelve days after it is taken up. Then, suppose it should pass this body without amendment, and be sent to the President in the shape in which it came from the House; he then would have ten days within which to approve it, or return it with his objections if he should think proper to pursue that course. That would carry us beyond the period now proposed to be fixed for the consideration of the bill immediately before us.

57		Again, if the Senate should think it expedient, as it is very likely they will, to make amendments to the homestead bill, those amendments will have to be transmitted to the other House for concurrence or rejection. This will probably delay that bill some days longer; how long I do not know. I consider, therefore, a postponement of the whole subject for two weeks not likely to answer the purpose of ascertaining the sentiments of the Executive in relation to the homestead bill. In other words, we shall be just as much in the dark two weeks hence in regard to what are intended to be the principles asserted by the message, or what limitations are intended to be extended in practice to the general principles laid down, as we are now. I am willing to agree to any postponement which gentlemen may consider necessary for the purpose of ascertaining the sentiments of the Executive, let it be for three or four weeks if necessary.