by any such ideas.  The session for the day, at whatever hour it commences, or at whatever hour it breaks up, is the legislative day.  Every thing has reference to the commencement of that diurnal session.  For instance, this is the 14th day of January; we assembled here to-day at twelve o’clock; our journal is dated January 14th, and if we should remain here until five o’clock to-morrow morning (and the Senate has sometimes sat so late), our proceedings would still bear date of the 14th of January; they would be so stated upon the journal, and the journal is a record, and is a conclusive record, so far as respects the proceedings of the body.

It is so in judicial proceedings.  If a man were on trial for his life, at a late hour on the last day allowed by law for the holding of the court, and the jury should acquit him, but happened to remain so long in deliberation that they did not bring in their verdict till after twelve o’clock, is it all to be held for naught, and the man to be tried over again?  Are all verdicts, judgments, and orders of courts null and void, if made after midnight on the day which the law prescribes as the last day?  It would be easy to show by authority, if authority could be wanted for a thing the reason of which is so clear, that the day lasts while the daily session lasts.  When the court or the legislative body adjourns for that day, the day is over, and not before.

I am told, indeed, Sir, that it is true that, on this same 3d day of March last, not only were other things transacted, but that the bill for the repair of the Cumberland Road, an important and much litigated measure, actually received the signature of our presiding officer after twelve o’clock, was then sent to the President, and signed by him.  I do not affirm this, because I took no notice of the time, or do not remember it if I did; but I have heard the matter so stated.

I see no reason, Sir, for the introduction of this new practice; no principle on which it can be justified, no necessity for it, no propriety in it.  As yet, it has been applied only to the President’s intercourse with the Senate.  Certainly it is equally applicable to his intercourse with both houses in legislative matters; and if it is to prevail hereafter, it is of much importance that it should be known.

The President of the United States, Sir, has alluded to this loss of the fortification bill in his message at the opening of the session, and he has alluded, also, in the same message, to the rejection of the vote of the three millions.  On the first point, that is, the loss of the whole bill, and the causes of that loss, this is his language:  “Much loss and inconvenience have been experienced in consequence of the failure of the bill containing the ordinary appropriations for fortifications, which passed one branch of the national legislature at the last session, but was lost in the other.”