Mr. President, on these grounds I object to this proposition. I might have objected to it, in the first place, as out of order, and asked the ruling of the Chair, not doubting how the Chair, inspired always by a generous love of human rights, must rule,--not doubting that the Chair would say that a proposition of such a character was too closely associated with one of the most odious measures of our history to deserve welcome at this time. I have raised no such question. I confine myself now to other objections. I object to it as a departure from sound usage, as contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, and as setting up an impediment and obstruction to the transaction of public business of an urgent character, which you cannot neglect without neglect of duty. I ask you to provide for the execution of recent treaties with Venezuela and Russia, to assure protection to Unionists in Maryland and Kentucky, and to give peace to the country. Above all, do not make a bad precedent, to be quoted hereafter to the injury of the Republic. Mr. Pomeroy, of Kansas, felt “embarrassed in voting against the resolution offered by the Senator from Rhode Island,” but he thought it “impracticable and unwise,” that it would “subject us to censure, and that we ourselves should regret it hereafter.” Mr. Yates, of Illinois, “was for a special session for a special purpose.” In reply to a question of Mr. Yates, Mr. Sumner said:-- I do not believe Congress would have come together, if they had had faith in the President. I believe the session beginning on the 4th of March had its origin in want of confidence in the President. I believe my friend agrees in that. MR. YATES. Yes. MR. SUMNER. It was to counteract and watch the President that Congress met on the 4th of March. When this session was about to adjourn, provision was made for its renewal, or a continuation or a prolongation of it, if you may so regard it. I take it in the same spirit with the original enactment. It was to provide against the President, and to do such other incidental business as the public interests might require. I never doubted that there would be a session on the 3d of July.[233] I so stated at the passage of the resolution. I have so stated constantly since; and I have advised more than one gentleman connected with Congress not to leave the country, because his post of duty was here. I believe that I have answered the question of my friend. And now one word more. We are assembled under an Act of Congress and the National Constitution. By the Constitution it is provided that “each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.” That is all it can do. It may not annihilate proceedings; it may not forbid proceedings. It may provide rules for them; but it cannot, in a just sense, prevent. Therefore I submit that the resolution, if not positively unconstitutional, is contrary to the spirit of that instrument.