Mr. Anthony made a brief statement, in which he said that he “supposed the reason for this proposition was so evident to every Senator who has conversed with the members of the body, that it would require no explanation whatever”; that “the public sentiment of the country demanded that there should be some legislation in order to make the Reconstruction Acts precisely what we intended them to be, and not as they have been construed.” Mr. Sumner then moved the following substitute:-- “That the Senate will proceed, under its rules, to the despatch of the public business requiring attention, and to this end all petitions and bills will be referred for consideration to the appropriate committees, without undertaking in advance to limit the action of Congress to any special subject, and to deny a hearing on all other subjects.” He then remarked:-- I object to the proposition of my friend from Rhode Island, which I cannot but think he has introduced hastily and without sufficient consideration, or at any rate under influences which I think his own better judgment should have rejected. I am against it on several grounds. If I said it was contrary to precedent, I should not err; for the attempt made the other day to show that there was precedent for such a proceeding, it seems to me, signally failed. Attention was then called to a resolution adopted at a session of Congress convened by the President of the United States for a declared purpose, announced at the time in advance. I think the course taken by Congress was regarded as questionable, even under the peculiar circumstances. But the two cases are different. The present session is not like that. It is a continuing session of a Congress begun on the 4th day of March last, being simply a prolongation of that session; and the practical question is, whether you will limit the business of Congress in a general session called under a statute of the United States. Clearly there is no precedent for any such proceeding. You plunge into darkness without a guide.