458 CONGRESSIONAL PROCEEDINGS. 



The SPEAKER replied that the previous question might be moved; 

 but the question of the amendment, having 1 been first moved, must 

 be first put. 



Mr. SMITH inquired, in case the previous question was sustained, if 

 it did not cut off the amendment? 



The SPEAKER said the previous question could not be put until after 

 the question was taken on the amendment; and he read from the man- 

 ual on this point. 



Mr. SMITH. If the previous question is moved, does it stop debate 

 on this proposition? 



The SPEAKER replied in the negative, but said he would regard the 

 previous question as moved, so that when this amendment was dis- 

 posed of no other could be moved, and then no debate could arise 

 except upon the previous question, the previous question being 

 debatable -under the parliamentary law. 



Mr. HUGH WHITE inquired, in case this resolution was adopted, if 

 it did not place all the bills and resolutions, etc., on the calendar as 

 they were at the close of the last session if it did not leave the House 

 precisely in the position in which they were at the close of the last 

 session. 



The SPEAKER replied in the affirmative. 



Mr. WHITE said, then, that a proposition of this character had been 

 referred to the Committee on Rules, and remained unacted on. He 

 wished to know whether it would not be competent to reach it in the 

 ordinary way; and whether there was, therefore, any necessity for the 

 adoption of the amendment of the gentleman from Tennessee. 



MR. GEORGE P. MARSH said he did not rise for the purpose of 

 impugning or defending the conduct of the Board of Regents, or even 

 for the purpose of entering into the discussion of the merits of this 

 motion, but simply that it might not be inferred from his silence that 

 any member of the board in this House was opposed to the adoption 

 of the resolution. On the contrary, he was now, and had been from 

 the time it was offered at the last session, decidedly in favor of its 

 adoption. He was satisfied, from what he had seen of the manage- 

 ment of this Institution, that a committee such as was proposed by the 

 gentleman from Tennessee would serve as a most wholesome and neces- 

 sary check upon the proceedings of this Institution. He believed that 

 the Board of Regents would be, and ought to have been long since, 

 made acquainted with its direct responsibility to the poWer which 

 created it. 



Mr. R. B. RHETT, of South Carolina, said, for the reasons which 

 the gentleman from Vermont had assigned, he trusted a committee 

 would not be appointed. He wanted no such direct responsibility as 

 the gentleman had spoken of. He was opposed to any connection of 

 the Government with this Institution; and he would suggest to the 



