March 26th, the House resolution was reported by Mr. Trumbull, with a substitute adjourning the two Houses “on the 28th instant, at twelve o’clock, meridian.” Debate ensued, when Mr. Howe, of Wisconsin, moved an adjournment on the 29th of March until the first Monday of June, and on that day, unless then otherwise ordered by the two Houses, until the first Monday of December. After debate, this amendment was rejected,--Yeas 17, Nays 25. Mr. Morrill, of Vermont, moved to amend the substitute of the Committee by adding “to meet again on the first Monday of November next,” which was rejected,--Yeas 16, Nays 25. Mr. Sumner then moved to amend the substitute by adding:-- “_Provided_, That the President of the Senate _pro tempore_ and the Speaker of the House of Representatives may by joint proclamation, at any time before the first Monday of December, convene the two Houses of Congress for the transaction of business, if in their opinion the public interests require.” Here he said:-- I am unwilling to doubt that Congress may authorize their officers to do that. I cannot doubt it. Assuming that we have the power, is not this an occasion to exercise it? I do not wish to be carried into the general debate. I had intended to say something about it; but it is late.… I will not, therefore, go into the general question, except to make one remark: I do think Congress ought to do something; we ought not to adjourn as on ordinary occasions,--for this is not an ordinary occasion, and there is the precise beginning of the difference between myself and the Senator from Maine, and also between myself and the Senator from Illinois. The Senator from Illinois said, Why not, as on ordinary occasions, now go home? Ay, Sir, that is the very question. Is this an ordinary occasion? To my mind, it clearly is not. It is an extraordinary occasion, big with the fate of this Republic.