Mr. AMES wished the call for the yeas and nays was withdrawn; because he thought they lost their usefulness by a too frequent use. He was in favor of the motion, but he did not wish to have his name entered on the minutes on that account. Mr. PARTRIDGE said, it was well known he never courted popularity; he never sought a seat in this House, or any other public body; but he insisted upon his right, as a member, to call for the yeas and nays, when he thought the public interest might be benefited by it; however, as the bill was not to be finished to-day, he would waive that call. The question was taken on Mr. GOODHUE'S motion, and passed in the negative, by a large majority. The bill was ordered to be engrossed, and the House adjourned. THURSDAY, August 13. _Amendments to the Constitution._ The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. BOUDINOT in the chair, and took the amendments under consideration. The first article ran thus: "In the introductory paragraph of the constitution, before the words 'We the people,' add 'Government being intended for the benefit of the people, and the rightful establishment thereof being derived from their authority alone.'" Mr. SHERMAN.--I believe, Mr. Chairman, this is not the proper mode of amending the constitution. We ought not to interweave our propositions into the work itself, because it will be destructive of the whole fabric. We might as well endeavor to mix brass, iron, and clay, as to incorporate such heterogeneous articles; the one contradictory to the other. Its absurdity will be discovered by comparing it with a law. Would any legislature endeavor to introduce into a former act a subsequent amendment, and let them stand so connected? When an alteration is made in an act, it is done by way of supplement; the latter act always repealing the former in every specified case of difference. Besides this, sir, it is questionable whether we have the right to propose amendments in this way. The constitution is the act of the people, and ought to remain entire. But the amendments will be the act of the State Governments. Again, all the authority we possess is derived from that instrument; if we mean to destroy the whole, and establish a new constitution, we remove the basis on which we mean to build. For these reasons, I will move to strike out that paragraph and substitute another. The paragraph proposed was to the following effect: _Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled_, That the following articles he proposed as amendments to the constitution, and when ratified by three-fourths of the State Legislatures shall become valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the same. Under this title, the amendments might come in nearly as stated in the report, only varying the phraseology so as to accommodate them to a supplementary form.