Mr. GALLATIN said, the provision of the bill left it to the discretion of the PRESIDENT whether he would expend the whole of the money, or not. His opinion was, that the sum was too large; but the question for striking it out having been negatived, the expenditure must be left to the discretion of the PRESIDENT. He did not mean to go into any detail. He did not wish to place the gentleman coming into office in a worse situation than that of him who was going out; and as he felt no objection to leave it to the PRESIDENT to make use of the whole or a part of this money, as his discretion should direct, he should vote for the bill. Mr. CLAIBORNE said, as provision had been made for furniture for the gentleman now in office, he was inclined to vote for the fourteen thousand dollars proposed now to be granted for the same purpose to the gentleman who was to succeed him. Mr. HENDERSON wished to give his reasons for voting against this bill. He wished to place the PRESIDENT coming into office in as comfortable circumstances as he who was going out; but it appeared to him that the sum proposed was larger than necessary for this purpose. Indeed, said Mr. H., when he read an article of the constitution touching this subject, he had his doubts with respect to the constitutionality of the proceeding. That article said, "that the PRESIDENT should receive a compensation which should neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he should have been elected; and that he should not receive within that period any other emoluments from the United States, or any of them." Mr. SITGREAVES believed there could be no doubt as to the constitutionality of the proposed grant of money, as the clause ran, "during the period for which he should have been elected," which would not prevent them from passing any number of acts before he went into office. The question on the passing of the bill was then taken by yeas and nays, and stood 63 to 27, as follows: