From the NcW York Amer,ean.


[From our C Correspondent
{"newspaper_name": "Delaware journal.", "edition": "01", "page": "p1", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 3406, "word_count": 597, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9742000102996826], "ccnet_perplexity": [877.7000122070312], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
WASHINGTON, Monday eve, Dec. !.


Dear Sir-I perceive that you have thought Mr..
Sanford's vote the subject of the Senate printing,
censurabe. Displeased as am at the result OF that
matter, do not think MIR. Sanford can in any way
be charged with declared partiaty for Duff Green.
His vote has been misunderstood You will pro-
badly recollect that Mr.. Clayton introduced last
year. when this subject under discussion. re-
solution establishing that maj rlty OF the Senators
present should be necessary Tor the election OF a
printer. Duff Green on that occasion had plural
tv of the votes, and after several ballots, further
proceedings on the subject was suspended, ON mo-


lion of MIR. Benton. On the FIRST occasion tor print
ing, this session. it observed by Mr.. Eaton
that there was as yet no printer He then intro
Guced resolution hat Duff Green. having last year
received plurality of votes. was du' elected un-
der the joint resolution of the two houess passed III
49, 9. On this resolution debate arose. 1t was
contended on one side. By Messrs. Eaton. Benton,
and Hayne, that the joint resolution of 1919 was
still in full force providing for the manner IN which
the work should be done, the securities &c. and
that the person having the greatest number OF votes
should be elected that the Senate last year. order
ed the election to take place in pursuance Of the
rule of 1919; that on the day appointed tor the ell
ection, that rule was modified in one particular
alone, that is, making majority necessary TO a
| choice, And they further contended that the rule
of l8l9 if obligatory in one respect, was obligatory
in all and hence it was not in the power Of the
Senate to cause the modification without the consent
Of the House, which had been party to the original
rule. The resolution offered by MIR. Clayton and
adopted last year. being thus nugatory, it followed
that the election was duly made under the order Of
the 18th Of last February for the election, made III
pursuance of the rule of 1919.


On the other side it was urged by Messrs. Cham
bers, Robbins and Macon, that the joint resolution
uf 1919 was dead, having been framed, as its words
implied, only for particular season that the reso-
luton of MIR. Clayton was deliberately adopted,
and under it, the Senate proceeded to its elec-
ton that election having been made on the first,
second and third ballots, the baoting was suspend
ed not upon the ground Of irregularity, but because
it was inconvenient to go on-no objection being Of
lered until the third ballot to the rm OF proceeding;
consequently no election was made, which was Il n
generally understood.


rhe question then occurred upon Mr.. Eaton's re-
solution, which was adopted by vote of 25 to l9,
MIR Sanford and Mr.. Barton of the administration
party voting for it, and MIR. Macon of the opposi-
tion against it.


Thus you will perceive that the bare question de-
cded by this vote did not involve an expression of
either personal or party predictions. 1t was the
simple proposition whether the joint resolution OF
1919 was still in full force and it being declared
to be so, there call upon the Senators to de-
signate their favourte printer by name Under
these circumstances it appears to me that there
might be conscientious dsagreements. Mr.. Bar
ton, also, who voted for MIR. Eton's resolution, is
firm friend of the administration, and Of Gales &
SeatoD,