I assume, therefore, that my friend cannot be against contributing to this exhibition simply on grounds peculiar to this moment. It must be on some other broader, more general ground. I must say that I cannot enter into that idea, either. If it was good for us to be represented ten years ago,--and I believe all, after the exhibition, were satisfied that it was good for us,--I believe it better now. Surely, all this my friend has at heart. I hope he will not forget that the interests of farmers, the interests of inventors, the interests of mechanics, the interests of all who toil and of all who produce,--in one word, the great diversified interests of the people, cannot fail to be promoted by this opportunity. And here is reason enough for the small outlay. In the brief debate that ensued, Mr. Lane, of Indiana, said:-- “The sword and the cannon are the reapers now, and the Rebels are the harvest; and to that purpose and to those reapers I shall devote my attention.” The joint resolution was lost,--yeas 17, nays 22; so that at the London Exhibition the United States had no representation. ORDER IN BUSINESS: EACH QUESTION BY ITSELF. REMARKS IN THE SENATE, FEBRUARY 6, 1862. The Senate had under discussion an Army Bill, when Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, moved an amendment reducing and regulating the mileage of Members of Congress. The remarks of Mr. Sumner were not addressed to the merits of the question, but to the impropriety of dealing with it in the pending bill. MR. PRESIDENT,--It seems clear that the discussion in which we are launched is a departure from the question before the Senate. The pending bill is “to define the pay and emoluments of certain officers of the army, and for other purposes,” and an amendment is moved to reduce and regulate Congressional mileage. By what process of association the two are brought together it is not easy to see. Certainly nobody looking for light on Congressional mileage would think of exploring our army legislation. * * * * * My experience teaches me the advantage, not to say the beauty of order, in the business of legislation, as in all other business. There is a proper place for everything, and everything should be in its proper place. Especially should things plainly incongruous be kept apart, and without commixture. But what more unreasonable than the commixture proposed? Each measure may be good in itself, but the two do not go together. They are without natural or logical connection. One is not the incident of the other, nor in any respect germane to the other. They should be in separate bills, and be discussed separately.