from its further consideration, and that it lie on the table; which was agreed to.

Mr. H. also from the same committee, to which had been referred the message of the President in relation to the transfer of appropriations in the Treasury, asked to be discharged from its further consideration, and that it be printed; which was agreed to.

Mr. WHITE of Indiana, in pursuance of notice, asked and obtained leave to bring in a bill for the relief of Peter Warner; which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on the Public Lands.

Mr. DAVIS, in pursuance of notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill for the relief of the gal representatives of Henry J. Pickering; which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. STRANGE, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, to which had been referred the petition of Samuel H. Thompson, asked to be discharged from the further consideration thereof, and that it be laid on the table; which was agreed to.

Mr. WILLIAMS, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, to which had been referred the memorial of Andrew Armstrong, made an adverse report thereon; which was ordered to be printed.

Mr. WALL submitted the following resolutions: Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to inquire into the expediency of abolishing imprisonment in all cases under and by viriue of mesne process issuing out of the courts of the United States.

Resolved, That the Committee on Commerce be instructed to inquire into the expediency of making an appropriation for the removal of the obstructions in the navigation of the Sound, or Kill, Van Kull, and in the Raritan or Prince's Bay, between the port of Perth Amboy, in the State of New Jersey, and port of New York, in the State of New York, mentioned in the report of Captains Lawrence Kearney, John D. Sloat, and M. C. Perry, to the Secretary of the Navy, dated December 9, 1837.

Mr. YOUNG submitted the following resolution: Resolved, That the Secretary of War be instructed to report to the Senate whether Rock Island, in the county of Rock Island and State of Illinois, has been abandoned as a military post by the troops of the United States, and whether the further reservation of the same is necessary for the defence of the Western frontier.

The various resolutions submitted yesterday by Messrs. YOUNG and SMITH of Indiana, were severally considered and agreed to.

The resolution submitted by the Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred the petition of William Easby, adverse to that petition, was considered and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

The following bills were taken up on their third reading, read a third time, and finally passed, viz: The bill for the relief of Walter Loomis and Abel Gay.

The bill for the relief of W. N. Robertson, Samuel H. Garrow, and S. W. Simonton.

The bill for the relief of W. A. Whitehead, late collector of the port of Key West, in Florida. The bill for the relief of Benjamin Murphy. The bill for the relief of Richard T. Banks. The joint resolution authorizing the President to cause certain surveys to be made.

The bill for the armed occupation and settlement of that part of Florida now overrun by hostile bands of marauding Indians, was taken up on its third reading, and Messrs. CRITTENDEN, PIERCE, and PRESTON addressed the Senate at length on the subject.

Mr. STRANGE intimating his intention to speak On the bill, on motion,

The Senate adjourned.

Mr. CURTIS moved that it be referred to the Committee on Roads and Canals.

Mr. R. GARLAND moved to refer it to the Committee on Commerce.

Mr McKAY moved to refer it to the Committee of WAYS and Means; and

After some discussion as to the appropriate com. mittee to which the same should be referred, in which Messrs. CURTIS, VANDERPOOL, MCKAY, CROSS, BIDDLE, GARLAND of Louisiana, POPE, EVERETT, and MITCHELL partook,

Mr. PECK moved that the bill do lie on the table; upon which motion

Mr. R. GARLAND demanded the yeas and nays, which were not ordered.

The question was then taken on the motion, by count, that the same do lie on the table, and decided in the negative-ayes 54, nays 77.

After some further remarks by Messrs. EVANS, SERGEANT, and R. GARLAND,

Mr. SERGEANT moved to postpone the subject until to-morrow; which was agreed to.

Mr. LAWRENCE obtained the general consent of the House to present the memorial of R. B. Forbes and others, American citizens, and merchants in Canton, China, for a naval force to protect their persons and the property of themselves and their countrymen; and also to send an agent, who shall be authorized to make a commercial treaty with that empire; which memorial, on motion of Mr. L. was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. HOFFMAN having called for the special order of the day, which was the amendment to the rules reported by the committee on that subject,

Mr. CAVE JOHNSON moved that said special order be postponed until Tuesday next, and that the rules of the last Congress be further adopted for the government of the House until Thursday next; which motion was agreed 10.

The CHAIR announced that the subject matter before the House was the resolution of Mr. CAMPBELL of South Carolina, proposing to refer all the documents and testimony in relation to the New Jersey disputed election to the committee on that subject; and Mr. BELL's substitute therefor, declaring that the gentlemen without certificates should not be qualified.

Mr. BOTTS, who was entitled to the floor, said if he were to consult his inclination instead of what he believed to be his duty, he would continue, as heretofore he had been, a silent member; but believing, in the sincerity of his heart, that the decision made here was fraught with more momentous and important consequences than any one presented to an American Congress since the adoption of the Constitution, he should feel faithless to the high trust imposed in him if he permitted the present occasion to pass without expressing his unqualified and unmitigated disapprobation of the course pursued by the majo. iity of the House. He did not belong to that class of politicians denominated the State Rights party, according to the modern definition of that term; for he believed that the general understanding of the definition by the world was, that they profess every thing and practise nothing; nor was he one of those who attached much importance to a name. It would afford him very little satisfaction, when he and his children were deprived of their liberties, to be told that they were taken from them by the friends of the human race. For three weeks of this session, he had sat in the House a silent member, but confessed that he was a pained and mortified spectator of the scenes around him-scenes that he had been but little accustomed to elsewhere. It was but a few years ago that the first act of expunging took place in any legislative body of this country; it was an act, the only object of which was to render homage to a lawless and vindictive tyrant-the only effect of which was to produce heartfelt and sincere disgust in the bosom of every honest patriot. It was his misfortune to have been the spectator of the second scene of expunging. The first was all a farce, but the second might be called a tragedy-and might well be called the last days of the Republic. He

had seen the State of New Jersey expunged, not by the miserable and farcical process of drawing black lines, but had seen her representatives driven from this floor; and for what purpose-for the purpose of affecting party triumph. He said it had pleased the people of the United States to elect representatives to this House in opposition to the party in power; but that party, in order to effect their objects in the election of Speaker, found it necessary to expunge five of the representatives of New Jersey from that floor, and he questioned very much, if it had not been for the existing state of parties which divided the body, whether these gentlemen would have been deprived of their seats.

Mr. B. then entered at large into the whole merits of the case, contending that the certificates of the Governor of New Jersey, as prima facie evidence of the elec'ion, entitled those holding them to take their seats. He denied that a particle of testimony had been offered to impeach those certificates; for he would not admit the certificate of the Secretary of State to be evidence, or that that officer had a right to affix the seal of the State to it. Mr. B. refered to various precedents to show that the person having the returas in all legislative bodies, always takes the seat in the first instance, and in the course of his remarks, referred to a speech of Mr. SMITH of Maine, in the Legislature of that State, which he said was in opposition to the course now pursued by that gentleman. At the opening of the session of the Legislature of Maine, to which Mr. B. referred, a motion, he said was made by Mr. ALBERT SMITH, now a member of this House, to admit Mr. Andrew Roberts to his seat, on the ground that he held the certificate of the returning officer, though Mr. Roberts did not not receive a majority of the votes.

Mr. SMITH asked leave to explain. Mr. Roberts, he said, did receive a majority of the votes of the people of the town of Kennebunk. There never was any question raised to the contrary. The only question was, whether the voters of the town of Kennebunk had, under the laws of the State, a right to adjourn the polls from day to day. It was admitted on all hands that Mr. Roberts had an undisputed majority. The gentleman, Mr. S. said, don't catch me going against majorities.

Mr. BOTTS continued, and read various extracts from the speech of Mr. SMITH referred to. Mr. B. then referred to the precedents of this House, which, he said, all bore him out in the ground he had taken; and in the Legislatures of the different States, he said, it was invariably the practice to give the seats to the persons holding the certificates of the returning officer. In elucidation of this part of his argument, Mr. B. referred to a case of contested election in the Virginia Legislature, in which Messrs. Berkley and Davis both claimed to be elected to represent the county of Hanover. This case, Mr. B. said, was misunders'ood, and erroneously stated the other day by his colleague, [Mr. DROMGOOLE,] and he then proceeded to state the case according to his understanding of it, which was, that the seat was awarded to the gentleman who held the certificate of the sheriff. Mr. B. appealed to his colleague, [Mr. BANKS,] who had presided with so much ability for twenty years in the Virginia Legislature, if, in cases of contested election, there ever was an instance in which the seat was not given, in the first instance, to the person who had the prima facie evidence.

Mr. BANKS said, that as he had been appealed to, he would stale what had usually been the practice in the House of Delegates of the State of Virginia. He knew that the usual practice had been that the certificate of the sheriff should be received as prima facie evidence of election; and the party holding it qualified, when there was no illegality in conducting the polls, in which case it was sent back. He thought, however, his colleague was mistaken in his statement of the case from the county of Hanover. He held in his hand a statement of the facts in this case, made by the Clerk of the House of Delega es, from which it appeared that Mr. Berkley came into the House of Delegates, and claimed and took his seat as a delegate from the county of Hanover. Mr. Davis, his opponent, also came into the House and took

his seat, both members having qualified before the Executive, as the members of the Virginia Legislature are qualified by that officer, and not, as here, by the Speaker. In this state of the case, and with. out any petition or memorial whatever from any quarter on the subject, a resolution was introduced by Mr. Winston to refer the whole matter to the Committee of Privileges and Elections. Mr. B. here read the following extract from the statement in his hand: On the second day of the session, a motion was made by Mr. Winston to adopt the following resolution: Resolved, That the Committee of Privileges and Elections be instructed to report upon the contested election from the county of Hanover as soon as possible; and in the nean time, that the two members thus contesting their elections from said county, be not entitled to their seats in this House.

"It is here proper to state [the Clerk adds] that no petition had been presented by any person previously to raise the question."

Mr. B. said it was after the committee had reported that Mr. Berkley was admitted to his seat, and that he held it for the remainder of the session.

Mr. BOTTS asked which of the two had the returns.

Mr. BANKS replied that one held the certificate of the sheriff, the other that of the deputy sheriff.

Mr. BOITS said it was because the polls were held by both those officers; in the first part of the day by the sheriff, and in the latter part by the deputy, that the difficulty occurred in the House of Delegates, and caused them to take the course they did. He would ask his colleague, however, if he himself had not, in private conversation, expressed to him the opinion that the certificates of the Governor of New Jersey were sufficient to enable the gentlemen holding them to take their seats. He was surprised, he said, after hearing these admissions from his colleague, to see him, time after time, passing through the tellers and voting to exclude these gentlemen.

Mr. BANKS here asked leave to explain, which being granted,

Mr. B. said as he did not mean to discuss this question, believing the whole discussion to be premature, his object had been, and was still, to refer the whole matter to the Committee of Elections, who would embody all the evidence and facts in a report, and the House could then, and not before, decide who were the legal and constitutional representatives from the State of New Jersey. Mr. B. admitted that he had said here and elsewhere that the certificate of return was prima facie evidence, but not conclasive of right; but in this case, which stands without an exact parallel, ten gentlemen claim seats, when only five are entitled. The House was then forced to take some action on the subject, and they adopted the safest course in securing the rights of the citizens of New Jersey, in refering the whole matter to a committee, where all the facts may be elicited, and the House be enabled to give a correct judgment upon the rights of the parties resp tively.

Mr. BOTTS continued his remarks for some time, replying to the remarks of Mr. DUNCAN, and other gentleman, who had previously occupied the floor in opposition to the claims of the members commissioned by the Governor. After he had concluded,

Mr. RANDOLPH obtained the floor, and discussed at some length the merits of the New Jersey question. He went over the same ground which had been previously occupied by himself and other members on the same side of the controversy. He presented many documents in the course of his remarks, to prove that frauds had been committed at the ballot box-sufficient, he contended, to establish the right of those holding the certificates of the Governor to be accredited by the House as the legitimate representatives of the people of New Jersey. Mr. R. without having finished his remarks, yielded the floor to

Mr. CORWIN, who moved that the House do adjourn; upon which motion,

Mr. SMITH of Maine demanded the yeas and nays; and the same having been ordered,

Mr. CORWIN withdrew his motion for adjournment; whereupon,

Mr. STANLY renewed it.

Mr. RAMSEY demanded the yeas and nays; which having been ordered, were-yeas 64, nays

104.

So the House refused to adjourn.

Mr. RANDOLPH having proceded in his remarks a short time, again yielded the floor to Mr. LEWIS WILLIAMS, who moved that the House do adjourn.

Mr. RAMSEY demanded the yeas and nays on said motion; which having been ordered,

Mr. L. WILLIAMS withdrew his motion. Mr. RANDOLPH renewed the motion for the adjournment, upon which

Mr. WELLER demanded the yeas and nays; which were ordered, and were-yeas 58, nays 78. So the House again refused to adjourn.

Mr. RANDOLPH then sent to the Chair a mass of depositions, touching the illegality of votes taken in the districts rejected by the county clerks; and the Clerk having proceeded for some time in the reading of the same,

Mr. C. WILLIAMS moved that the House do adjourn; upon which motion,

Mr MCCLELLAN demanded the yeas and nays; which being ordered by the House, were—yeas 67, nays 58.

The House accordingly adjourned till to-morrow at 12 o'clock.

IN SENATE,
FRIDAY, January 10, 1840.

The CHAIR laid before the Senate a report of the Secretary of State, exhibiting the number, names, and compensations of the clerks in that Department during the year 1840; which was read, and ordered to be printed.

Also, a report of the Secretary of the Treasury, made in compliance with a resolution of the Senate, exhibiting the prices of certain State stocks in the London and home markets, which was cr dered to be printed, and that fifteen hundred additional copies be printed.

Also, a report of the Secretary of War, in compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 30th ult. calling for information in relation to the proceedings in the case of Lieut. Col. Brant; which was ordered to lie on the table, and be printed.

The CHAIR also presented the memorial of Chauncey Hall, praying that provision may be made by Congress for testing the merits of a steam engine, of which he is the inventor; which was referred to the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office.

On motion by Mr. PIERCE, it was ordered that Dunc in L. Clinch have leave to withdraw his petition and papers, presented at the last session.

Mr. PIERCE preseated the petition of John Bauer, a soldier in the Ordnance Department, praying a pension, in consideration of a disability incurred by the premature discharge of a cannon, whilst assisting at the firing of a national salute; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions.

Mr. P. also presented the petition of Wilfred Knott, a soldier during the late war with Great Britain, praying a pension for wounds received whilst in the duscharge of his duty; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions.

On motion by Mr. ROANE, ordered that the petition of Stephen McCormick, now on file, be refer ed to the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office.

Mr. CALHOUN presented the memorial of Samuel Lord, praying to be released from liability as surety on a custom-house bond; which was referred to the Committee on Finance.

On motion by Mr. WILLIAMS, it was ordered that the petition of James H. Clark, now on file, be referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

Mr. TAPPAN presented the memorial of Joseph K. Boyd and others, surviving captors and legal representatives of deceased captors, who volunteered in recapturing and destroying the frigate Philadelphia, in the harbor of Tripoli, in the year 1804, praying remuneration for the services per

formed in that action; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

Mr. CLAY of Alabama presented a letter of W. W. CHAPMAN, Delegate in Congress from the Territory of lowa, in reference to a report in a morning paper of some remarks made by Mr. LINN in the Senale yesterday, on the disputed boundary between Iowa and Missouri, and which were as follows:

MISSOURI AND JOWA TERRITORY.

The VICE PRESIDENT presented a memorial from the Legislative Council of lowa, praying a settlement of the contested boundary line between said Territory and the State of Missouri.

Mr. LINN said that, in consequence of the delay on the part of the Congress of the United States definitely to settle, in conjunction with the authoriues of Missouri, the northern boundary of the State, a serious conflict seemed at one time to be threatened between us and our brethren of the Territory of lowa. Fortunately, the storm had for the present passed without bloodshed, but we are admonished of the necessity of settling permanently this disturbing matter.

He thought the State of Missouri had not been well treated by the General Government. She had presented to the Senate, nearly ten years since, a memorial on the necessity of defining our limits on the north; and it was predicted in that paper that grave evils would occur if delayed until the counTry north of us should become settled by the whites, or given to emigrating tribes of Indians. Congress neglected these admonitions, and for several years a bill, introduced by himself, having for its object the settlement of the quest on, was, for want of time, not passed by the House of Re presentatives. The State of Missouri passed an act appointing commissioners to run her Northern boundary, and invited the General Government to unite commissioners with hers, to aid in settling this important question. This invitation was not accepted. Missouri proceeded to run her line according, as is believed, to the act of Congress of March, 1820, and the Constitution of the State.

Subsequently to this, Congress passed an act appointing Commissioners to run the southern boundary of lowa, who made a report, which was laid before Congress during the last session. One object Mr. LINN had in view in rising, was to convince the Senate that the claim of Missouri to an extension of her jurisdiction was not a claim of yesterday, but that she informed Congress of the difficulties which surrounded the subject, nearly ten years since. Mr. LINN then read as follows from the memorial:

"Your memorialis's further represent that the northern boundary of this State, as indicated by the act of Congress of the 6th of March, 1820, and adopted by our Constitution, is the parallel of latitude which passes through the rap ds of the river Des Moines, extending on that line from the northwest corner of the State to the middle of the channel of the main fork of the said river Des Moines; thence, down along the middle of the ma'n channel of the said river Des Moines to the mouth of the same where it empties into the Mississippi river.' This line is vague and indefinite. The country on the Des Mones is still unse tled, and comparatively unknown, although the flood of mi gration now pouring into this State is rapidly tending to that border. We are not informed of the exact local position of the rapids of the river Des Moines,' nor whether those rapids are occa sioned by a single obstruction of the stream, so as to indicate the precise position of the line, or are produced by a succession of shoals, extending like the rapids of the Mississippi, for many miles. And if, on examination, it should be found that the course of the Des Moines, like that of the Missis sippi, is disturbed by different rapids, with long intervals of a smooth cnrrent between them, it may well be doubted which of the rapids shall indicate our northern boundary. And we consider it highly important that the line in question should be definitely settled and distinctly known before the white. settlements, now rapidly spreading, shall reach the borders, and before the possibility of a conflict with the Indian tribes, which we have reason to appre hend may be removed to that frontier. And to

that end we respectfully request that Congress will take such measures as to their own wisdom and justice shall seem most proper."

Congress failed to appoint commissioners to meet those of Missouri; but the commissioners subsequently appointed by Congress made report, which leaves the subject where they

a

found it. They decided nothing. Questions of boundary have in all ages and countries been prolific sources of contention and bloodshed between individuals and nations. Every thing that can be done should be done to avoid such sad alternatives among the different communities of this happy Confederacy. Congress cannot now fix the boandaries of Missouri. They were defined by the law of March 6, 1820, authorizing us to form a Constitution, adopted in the Constitution of the State, and ratified by the General Government. The southaern boundary of lowa Territory can by Congress be made to conform to the claims of Missouri; but we must have our legal and constitutional rights; and, as a last resort, the courts of our commor. country may yet have to decide what those rights

3

are.

Mr. LINN moved that the memorial from which he had just read an extract, together with the report of the United States Commissioners made during the last session, be referred to the Committee on the Judiciery.

The letter of Mr. CHAPMAN was then read, as follows:

To the Honorable the Senate of the United States:

The undersigned, the Delegate from the Territory of lowa, begs leave of your honorable body to say, that from one of the city papers of this morning he perceives that one of the honorable Senators from Missouri has made a speech upon the subject of the disputed boundary between the State of Missouri and the Territory.

Inasmuch as the Territory of Iowa is necessarily without representation in your honorable body, (except so far as Senators generally have been pleased to treat her claims with great kindness,) and as the subject of the boundary for some days has been before a committee of the House, where the undersigned has been able to give it his personal attention, and where, some time since, the Representatives from Missouri were, by the committee, invited to attend, with the undersigned; he, therefore, had good reason, as he supposes, to hope that, until an investigation could be had by a conmittee, Missouri would refrain from charging the General Government with ill treatment.

If the undersigned might be permitted to refer to the liberality of Congress towards that State, he is sure that the recent addition of an immense district of country would not be the only instance of the liberality of the General Government towards the State of Missouri.

Your petitioner has no fears of the final result of this question. He only hopes that if nothing but the constitutional boundary will be accepted by that State, your honorable body will not consider it your duty, though possessed of the power, to extend her constitutional limits. Should the legal boundary be found to run through the heart of our flourishing Territory, our people have too much pride to stand out against the deliberate opinion of Congress, and seek redress elsewhere.

On the contrary, if it shall appear that Missouri already eccupies more than her constitutional limits will allow, he hopes for an award of the balance found in our favor.

At this time, the undersigned forbears referring to any of the numerous documents in his possession, going far, in his opinion, to sustain the claims of the Territory, fearing that doing so previous to the subject coming before a committee, might be considered premature on his part. With great respect, I have the honor to be, your

obedient servant

W. W. CHAPMAN.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 10, 1840.

Mr. LINN said he regretted exceedingly that his young friend, the Delegate from Iowa, had written and sent this letter here, as it was based upon misapprehension of his remarks, as uttered on this floor, and printed in the Intelligencer. He said he was determined the Delegate should have no pretext for saying that one of the Senators from Mis

souri had given him just cause for writing this letter, the object of which seemed intended for home consumption, and to show his constituents of the great care he was taking of the interests of Iowa. In his remarks, he had carefully abstained from entering into the merits of the question in dispute, and he could not refrain from expressing his surprise that the Delegate had so construed and characterized them. He was certain that, by no rule of construction, could they be so viewed On moving the reference of a message from the President, which contained information touching the controversy existing in rela tion to the boundary line between Iowa and Missouri, he had taken occasion to call the attention of the Senate to the existence of a memorial from the Legislature of Missouri, presented to Congress nine or ten years since, which stated, in calm and respectful terms, the im. portance of not leaving that boundary line vague and unsettled until the question might become com. plicated, in consequence of the tide of white population flowing into that quarter, or the county be given t some emigrating tribe of Indians from some of the interior States. He had felt it his duty to call the attention of the Senate and the country to this memorial, to prove that the claim of Missouri to an extension of jurisdiction was not an after thought, or claim of but yesterday, and to show that her admonitions had been overlooked or disregarded; that the evils predicted from delay were now taking place. The memorial does not enter into the merits of the question; on the contrary, it states that the line was vague and indefinite, perhaps from the phraseology of the act of Congress of March 6, 1820, which authorized us to form a Constitution. Nor, Mr. President, has he argued the matter, for or against Missouri, nor endeavored in any manner to prejudice the opinion of this body against Iowa.

Mr. L. said that he knew the contest in this case was between the United Sates and the State of Missouri, involving, it was true, the interests of Iowa. If Congress possessed any undisputed power, she certainly had sole and entire control over the public lands, and over the Territories. This case was much stronger than existed in the contest between Ohio and Michigan, inasmuch as Michigan claimed to be a sovereign and independent State, and claimed certain rights under the ordinance of 1787. Notwiths'anding this, Congress exercised her (in his opinion) undoubted power to prescribe limits to Michigan. In coming to this decision, which involved the boundaries of three States, it was possible that the decision was somewhat influenced by their votes in Congress, and by their political power. Missouri, in her constitutional shpere of action, is as free and independent as the United States. She has the same right to construe the act of March 6, 1820, as this Government. She has solemnly given her construction to it, and it remained for Congress to give hers. Mr. NORVELL said that he should not have risen, but for the allusion of his honorable friend behind him from Missouri (Mr. LINN] to the case of the Michigan boundary. He had no doubt that the right cord had been touched, when the decision of that question had been ascribed to the number of electoral votes which were controlled by Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, on that ocaasion. He had risen, however, to second the resolution of the Senator from Alabama [Mr. CLAY] to print and refer the letter of the Delegate from Iowa. He understood that it was couched in respectful language. It had relation to a boundary line, which that Territory claimed, of great importance to her. He protested against the idea that the Territory had no interest in this question. It seemed, from the whole action of this Government, to be considered that the people of the Territories possessed neither rights nor interests of any kind. He trusted that such a doctrine would no longer be entertained. He confessed that his sympathies were with Iowa in the present controversy, but certainly not so deeply enlisted as to induce him to do injustice to Missouri.

'Mr. LINN said perhaps he had committed an error in his language; but he merely meant to say that, as a party to this question, Iowa had no inte

rest in it. As a question to be settled, it lay wholly between the United States and Missouri. And would any body now say that the decision of Congress on this question would be binding on Missouri? Would any one say that Missouri could be forced into acquiescence to it? The ultimate appeal was beyond the reach of Congress, and if Congress did not settle it, the courts were open. Mr. L. preferred that Congress should settle it; but if they determined that Missouri had no right whatever to the Territory, and sent an armed power to enforce their edicts, he hoped they would be met by a spirit of resistance on the part of Missouri.

Mr. ALLEN said, the controversy between Michigan and Ohio was happily terminated; but he was not aware that the subject of Presidential electors had any thing to do with it. In the House of Representatives, when that subject was under discussion there, in 1834, in a speech which he made, he had taken the same ground as he would at present, viz: that the people of the Territory of Michigan had only a resulting contingent in erest, but, as a party, no interest at all; because Michigan was not a party to the controversy, which was wholly between Ohio and the Federal Govern

ment.

But Mr. A had now risen chiefly to express his dissent from the doctrine of the Senator from Missouri, as to a final appeal on this question. The Un ted States Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over this question by the Constitution, and into that jurisdiction it could not be drawn. It was a question between sovereign powers, with which that cour', being the creature and representative of one of those sovereign powers, has no right to interfere, either directly or indirectly.

Mr. A. would remark, further, that he ha. never looked at this question as to the right f Missouri or the United States to this territory. But he hoped Congress would act on this subject purely in reference to such right as should be found to exist in the formation of the Constitution of Missouri, and without any reference whatever to the Presidential election, or any other question. If Missouri had a right to the territory, let her have it, without setting up as a scarecrow the Presidential election. Lo her have exact and equal justice.

Mr. BUCHANAN said that this was in its ature a question purely judicial, and therefore one on which the Senate ought to act with perfect calmness and deliberation. They ought to hear both sides patiently; and their decision, whatever it might be, ought to carry with it that moral power which always resulted from strict impar.iality and thorough, as well as calm investigation. But what did we then witness? The question had been discussed whether, in case Congress should decide against Missouri, that State would afterwards have the power of appealing to the Federal Judiciary. But could it be of any possible benefit to Missouri to discuss this question in advance? It was possible the question might never arise; and if it did, in consequence of a decision by Congress against Missou ri, she might then pursue the course which she thought most compatible with her interest and her honor. The question as to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States over the subject could never properly arise in this body.

Again: an attempt had been made to renew the war between Ohio and Michigan in the discussion of this question. They had had enough of this war in the Senate in former years to satisfy any reasonable man; and he trusted that question would not then be conjured up to disturb our repose. It was now over and gone.

Mr. B. hoped the Senate would proceed and settle the real question in controversy, so far as it was competent for them to decide it, without entering upon an exciting discussion of one question which might never arise, and of another which had been already determined. He trusted that the letter would be referred to the Judiciary Committee without further debate.

Mr. CLAY of Alabama said it was very far from his intention or expectation, when he prepresented this letter, to provoke the d scussion which has followed it. The Senator from Missouri disclaims any intention of going into the facts involved in this question; but, said Mr. C. if, with

out doing so, that gentleman could succeed in establishing certain principles, which he advocated, to control the determination of facts, he thought they would result pretty much as he wished. This, said Mr. C. is a question of boundary-of course a question of fact, as well as law. Now, if the Senator shall succeed in laying down his own rules and principles, for the ascertainment of the facts, excluding such evidence as may not accord with his views, and admitting only such as may tend to sustain them, it is not difficult to conjecture how matters will eventuate.

The Senator from Missouri, however, said Mr. C. maintains that Iowa has no interest in this question that it is a question which concerns Missouri alone, except so far as the United States may be a party. To any such position as this, Mr. C. said, he could not withhold the expression of his unqualified dissent. He asked, how happened it that the people of Iowa had no interest in a question which involved the curtailment or enlargement of their territorial limits? Had they not the same inducements to deprecate the one, or desire the other, that the people of Missouri had? It seemed to him, Mr. C. said, that the people of Iowa, shortly to become a State of the Union themselves, might be pardoned for any apparent unwillingness to have their limits contracted, and indulged in the solicitude, common to every other people, rather to have their Territory enlarged, their resources augmented, and their population increased.

Sir, said Mr. C. the ordinance establishing the Territory of Iowa, not only guarantied to the inhabitants certain fundamental rights-such as the security of life, liberty, and property-but also defined its boundaries. That ordinance constitutes a compact between the General Government and the citizens of the Territory, which he was not disposed to see violated, or lightly considered. Whilst he would be the last, Mr. C. said, to trench upon the territory or jurisdiction of Missouri, or any other State of the Union, he could not consent to aggrandize or build up one at the sacrifice of another. As he was not a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, he had thought it proper to throw out these hints for the consideration of its members, before they came to any determination. He sincerely trusted they would give the subject, in all its aspects, the deliberation merited by its impor

tance.

For himself, Mr. C. said, he had not investigated the subject; he felt, however, that it would be his duty to do so. He was entirely unprejudiced, would give it his attention, and felt determined, as far as he was capable, to do justice in the premises.

As to the question raised by the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. ALLEN,] in regard to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, he should not now express an opinion, as he thought it would be premature. It will be time enough to discuss that question after the Committee on the Judiciary had presented their report. Indeed, Mr. C. thought the whole debate was out of order at this time, and hoped it would now cease, and the memorial be suffered to go to the proper committee.

Mr. SMITH of Indiana submitted whether the whole of this discussion was not premature. In justice to the Senator from Mis ouri, [Mr. LINN,] he would say that, in his remarks yesterday, he did not consider him as trenching on the rights of Iowa. He hoped the paper would be referred to the appropriate committee, without further deba'e.

The question was then taken on referring the paper to the Committee on the Judiciary, and decided in the affirmative.

Mr. PRESTON presented the petition of Lucy P. Green, praying to be allowed the commutation pay to which her late father was entitled as an officer of the Revolutionary army; which was referred to the Committee on Revolutionary Claims.

Mr. P. also presented a memorial of Alexander Cummings and others, officers of the line, praying that they may be placed upon the same footing as to pay and promotion, as officers of the staff; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

Mr. MERRICK presented the petition of Mary

Blakesle, widow of a deceased Revolutionary soldier, praying a pension; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions.

On motion by Mr. M. ordered that the petition of Eunice Starr, on the files of the Senate, be referred to the Committee on Pensions.

Mr. M. also presented the petition of James P. Delacour, in behalf of Eliza Delacour, widow of a soldier in the last war, praying a pension; which was referred to the Commitee on Pensions.

On motion by Mr. ROANE, ordered that the pe. tition of Jeremiah Fugitt, now on file, be referred to the Committee on Pensions.

On motion of Mr. KING, ordered that the Committee on Commerce be discharged from the further consideration of the report from the Secretary of State in relation to the nature and extent of the privileges and restrictions of the commercial intercourse of the Uni ed States with foreign nations, and that it be referred to the Committee on Fi

nance.

Mr. WALKER presented the petition of Thomas Barnard, praying authority to locate a quantity of land on any of the unappropriated public lan 's in Mississippi; which was referred to the Committee on the Public Lands.

Mr. W. also presented the petition of John W. Monette, praying confirmation to title to certain tracts of land; which was referred to the Committee on the Public Lands.

Mr. W. also submitted a paper in relation to the petition of Joseph Radcliff; which was referred to the Committee on Claims.

Mr. MERRICK presented the memorial of Joseph L. Smith and others, praying that the Committee on Agriculture may be instructed to report annually on the condition of the agricultural interests of the United States; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. BENTON presented the petition of Zadoc Martin, praying the right of pre-empt on to a tract of land; which was referred to the Committee on the Public Lands.

Mr. B. also presented the memorial of a number of cit zens of Washington county, Missouri, praying the establishment of an an additional land office; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

DIVISION OF FLORIDA.

Mr. WALKER, at the request of the Delegate from the Territory of Florida, presented the proceedings of a public meeting at St. Augustine, in East Florida, together with a memorial subscribed by many hundred citizens of the Territory, praying a division of the Territory, and that the Suwannee river be the dividing line; which he moved should be referred to a select committee of five, and be printed.

Mr. W. said he was decidedly in favor of the views of the memorialists, and the ultimate creation of two States out of Florida, one east and the o her west of the Suwannee river. As there was no Committee on the Territories in the Senate, and as no judicial controversy was involved in this maiter, but as it was simply a question of expediency, he had thought it proper to move the refe rence to a select committee.

Florida, as we received it from Spain, (said Mr. W.) was divided into two portions, designated as East and West Florida, and this was a natural division. West Florida borders entirely on the Gulf of Mexico. Into that gulf flow all its rivers, and into that gulf must its commerce be forever poured. It was different with East Florida; it was Atlantic in its position, and nearly all its trade must be carried to that great ocean. The entire Territory is believed to be larger in extent than any State in the Union; and the smallest division, as proposed, viz: West Florida, is much larger than either of the States of Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, or Massachusetts. Florida, west of the Suwannee, was not only much larger than either of these eight States, but larger, as was believed, than any two of these States combined. East Florida alone is about equal in superficial extent to the great State of Pennsylvania. So far as the extent is concerned, there can be then no objection to

creaing ultimately two States, as proposed by the memorialists; whilst to create one State alone, would be not only to create a State of vast superficial extent, but of most inconvenient shape, stre ching in an elbow from Cape Sable to the Perdido, a distance of nearly one thousand miles, and with nearly two thousand miles of seacoast. Mr. W. believed that the census would show that the population in Florida, west of the Suwannee, was already about equal to that of Arkansas when admitted into the Union, and therefore could be immediately admitted as a State; while East Florida could remain as a Territory until her population was ascertained to be sufficient for State purposes. He thought whilst two new States would soon be admitted from the Northwest, it was due to the South that two States should be created out of Florida, especially as there were so many very small States already situated in the North and East

Mr. CALHOUN said the matters embraced in the memorial presented by the Senator from Mississippi, in behalf of the people of East Florida, were of the greatest importance. There were many grave reasons in favor of the division of Florida in'o two States, and perhaps some against it. But as the subject would shortly come up, he presumed, on an app ication on the part of Florida to become a State, he thought it best to let the memorial lay on the table for a few days, when the whole subject could be referred together to the same select committee.

Mr. WALKER said he had no objection to the course suggested by the Senator from South Carolina, if he would call up the matter shortly; more especially as he (Mr. W.) was in favor of the im. mediate admission of West Florida as a State, and a simultaneous prospective provision for the speedy admission of East Florida.

Mr. CALHOUN said he would call up the matter at a very early day; and, with Mr. W's consent, the motion for the select committee was, for the present, laid on the table.

Mr. TAPPAN, from the Commit'es on Naval Affairs, to which had been referred the petition of Henry Fry, made an adverse report thereon; which was ordered to be printed.

Mr. WILLIAMS, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, to which was referred the memorial of Ju'ia L. Weed, reported unfavorably thereon: the report was ordered to be printed.

Mr. CLAY of Alabama, from the Committee on the Public Lands, to which had been referred a bill supplemental to the act entitled "An act to grant pre-emption rights to settlers on the public lands," reported the same with amendments, which were ordered to be printed.

Mr. FULTON, from the Committee on the Pub. lie Lands, to which had been referred the memorial of John A. L. Norman, asking Congress to make a grant of land for the establishment of the Dade Institute of Florida, made a report thereon, accompanied by a bill; which was read, and ordered to a second reading, and the report ordered to be printed.

Mr. WALL, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported a bill to amend the act "to provide for taking the sixth census or emuneration of the inhabitants of the United States," approved March 3, 1839; which was read, and order to a second reading.

Mr. YOUNG, in pursuance of notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce the following bills: A bill granting to the Chicago and Galena Union Railroad Company the right of way over the public lands of the United States, and for other purposes; and

A bill for the relief of Benjamin Parsons; which were severally read twice, and referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

Mr. STRANGE gave notice that on to-morrow he would ask leave to bring in a bill for the relief

of Hazard Knowles.

Mr. WILLIAMS gave notive that to-morrow he would ask leave to bring in a bill to regulate the pay and emolument of the pursers of the navy.

Mr. RUGGLES gave notice that to-morrow he wonld ask leave to introduce a bill for the relief of Henry Stone and Charles J. Keller.

Mr. WALKER offered the following resolution,

26TH CONG.........1ST SESS.

BY BLAIR & RIVES.

(Continued from No. 7.)

which, by unanimous consent, was considered and agreed to:

Resolved, That the Committee on Commerce be instructed to inquire into the expediency of establishing ports of entry at Grand Gulf and Rodney, in the State of Mississippi.

The resolutions submitted yesterday by Messrs. WALL and YOUNG, were severally considered and agreed to.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

The bill for the armed occupation and settlement of that part of the Territory of Florida now overrun by hostile bands of marauding Indians, being taken up,

Mr. STRANGE addressed the Senate at length in opposition to the bill.

Mr. TAPPAN submitted some amendments, which he proposed to offer to the bill, which were ordered to be printed.

The Senate then went into an Executive session, after which, it

Adjourned until Monday next.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

FRIDAY, January 10, 1840.

The CHAIR announced that the subject matter before the House was the resolution of Mr. CAMP BELL of South Carolina, proposing to refer all the documents and testimony in relation to the New Jersey disputed election to the commi't e on that subject; and Mr. BELL'S substitue therefor, d claring that the gentlemen without certificates should not be qualified.

Mr. RANDOLPH, who was enti led to the floor, was about proceeding, but was interrupted by

Mr. GIDDINGS, who inquired of the CHAIR, whether he was not entitled to the flour, on the question of public printing.

The CHAIR decided that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. RANDOLPH] was entitled to it, on the question announced.

Mr. DAVIS submited a motion to proceed to the election of Chaplain to the House; but

The SPEAKER ruled it out of order, without a suspension of the rules.

Mr. STANLY inquired if this was not the day to proceed to the election of public Painter.

Mr. WISE. That will come up at 1 o'clock. Mr. RANDOLPH in'inated that he was willing to yield his right to the floor, if the genil-men of all parties were dispos d to take the question.

Mr. CLIFFORD expressed his wish to ad iress the House at large upon the question before it, and, for one, could not consent.

Mr. RANDOLPH then proceeded to argue the question at some length. He justi ed the clerks of courts in stepping over the laws of New Jersey when they had conceived, or it had come to their knowledge, that a fraud had been committed on the ballot box. They did not pretend to investigate the votes, but refused to receive an illegal return of vote; it was on that ground that the returns from the town of Malville were excluded; they were not received in the time prescr bed by the laws of New Jersey. The law is express as to the time. The retu ns were not in contormity to the laws, inasmuch as they were not received for six or seven hours after the time prescribed therein, and until after the fact had be: n ascertained by the clerk that a large number of alien and illegal votes had been taken. They were not excluded from the return because the clerk had any right, under the law, to investigate the polls, but because of the knowledge he had received of the nature of the returns to him, by the return judges, of which, under the discretion given him by the law, he had the right to determine, as to the legality, or illegality. said the lists of the county clerks had been received by the Executive of New Jersey, and the question was started whether the Governor was not bound to send for the returns of Millville and South Amboy. He read the law, which made it the duty of

He

TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1840.

-WEEKLY

the Governor to send by express for all absent returns; but he denied that the law contemplated any other returns than those of the county clerks, and maintained that he had no right to send for the retuins of the polls. The clerks had exercised their discretion in excluding those polls, and the higher authorities of the State had no right to go behind the Ess of votes returned by them. He was confident that was the right construction of the law; and cited cases where the return ng officers, the county clerks, had exercised the same discretion, and had thrown out several townships, at different periods in the history of New Jersey. He was understood to admit, that, if the Governor had the power to go behind the county clerk's returns, he was bound by his cath to send an express for the polis; but the question had been raised by the Governor himself, before the Privy Council, whether it was not his du'y, under the law, to send for the absent rejected returns. The president of the Council had examined into the question, and a different construction, and, he believed, a correct one, was put upon the law. And another question, he said, had been raised in the Council, whether these papers which had been read in the House as conclusive testimony, could be received by them. The Council decided properly that they could not; and he was correct heretofore in saying that the returns of Millville and South Amboy were not before them. Mr. R. then denounced the course the Heuse had pursued towards the State of which he was now the sole Representative; and concluded by expressing to the House his consciousness of the g eat responsibility which had devalved on him in consequence.

Mr. SMITH of Maine regretted that he had been unsucces-ful in his attempt to get the floor, immediately after the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. BOTTS] had taken his seat, merely to reply to that part of the gentleman's speech which related to himself. It was not his wish or intention to enter into the merits of the question of the right of the claimants to seats in the House as members from the Stale of New Jersey, believing, as he did, that the House had become heartily disgusted with the discussion of that question, and the reiteration of arguments, which had been so often repeated, that they were as lamiliar as household words. Nor did he consider the merits of that case as now legimately before the Hous:, and open to discussion, under the proposition of the gentleman from Tennessee to amend the resolution of the chairman of the Commitlee on Privileges and Electon, [Mr. CAMPB LL] The question upon that amendment did not, in the opinion of Mr. S. open the main question of right to seats, nor could it be the proper subject of debate, until the facts and evidence had been fully examined and reported by the committee to which they would be referred.

Mr. S. said, he only rose to explain and reply to a portion of the speech of the gentleman from Virgna, which had been introduced with special reference to the course which he (Mr. S.) had taken in the House. The gentleman had read from newspapers publi-hed in Maine, by the new friend and ally of the Whig party, the late representative from Cumberland district, an extract of a speech said to have been delivered by Mr. S. in the Leg slature of Maine, in the year 1e30; and had attempted to show a manifest discrepancy by a comparison of the principles and opinions avowed in that speech, with the course of Mr. S. in this House. Mr. S. was unable to say whether his remarks in the Legislature of Maine had been correctly reported in the paper from which the gentleman had read. It was utterly impossible for him to recollect, with any degree of distinctness or precision, what the tenor of his remarks had been upon the occasion alluded to. But he well remem bered the case of Andrew Roberts in the Maine Legislature-he decision upon it, and the glorious results produced by it. That the case might be better understood by the House, he would briefly state it.

VOLUME 8.........No. 8.

PRICE $1 PER SESSION.

The House of Representatives of Maine, in 1830, was nearly equally divided. Neither party could count with much certainty upon a majority. In the Senate there were eight Democrats, and the same number of Federalists, and five vacancies, which, by the Constitution of that State, after the constitutional candidates had been designated by the Senators lect, were to be filled y such Senaters and the House of Representatives in convention. Andrew Robertson appeared as the R presentative of the town of Waterborough, in the county of York-with his certificate of e'ec'ion, and, notoriously, a large majority of the votes of the people in his favor. No other person claimed a seat from that town, and there was no evidence before the House tending to impeach, or in any man. ner control that certificate. Put the Federal party had heard that Mr. R had not been elected on the second Monday of September, the day designated by Constitution of Maine for holding town meetings for the choice of town officers, but that the meeting in Waterborough, having completed but a part of the business for which it was celled on that day, had adjourned to the day following, to complete the el c'ions; and that, on that day, Mr. R. was elected. There was a mass of evidence in the case-sealed up-and which could not be examined, being directed to the Speaker; and the Federal party undertook to expel Mr. Roberts from his seat, and, to their disgrace, succeeded in the exccution of that nefarious purpose. They then proceded to elect their Speaker, which was done by a majority of one vote! they filled the vacancies in the Senate with their own men-and counted the votes for Governor in such a manner as barely to elect their candidate.

The proceedings of that Legislature would long be remembered by the people of Maine. They formed a most important epoch in the history of that State. What, sir, did they do? Suspend a member who had obtained a certificate, or commission, as some gentlemen pleased to call it, against a clear, decided, and acknowledged majority of vo'es thrown by the people a majority not only 'proved by undoub'ed evidence, but confessed upon the floor by the member himself? Not so. But they rudely expelled a member from his seat who had his regular credentia's, and the majority of the votes, and the law and Constitution, and right, and justice, all in his favor; and by this outrage elected their Speaker by a majority of one vote! What was the consequence of this outrage in that State? The people-the Democracy-had, at the next election, arisen in their majesty, and hurled the principal actors in these scenes from their places-redeemed the State from Federal thraldom, and, with the exception of a single year, had held the Government ever since.

The same result had followed the course of Governor Pennington in New Jersey. After the Congressional election in 1833, at which Messrs. Dickerson and his associates had been legally elected, the Governor undertook, for reasons expressed by him at the time, to give certificates of election to other gentlemen, who had received but a minority of the votes. The State election followed in 1839; and what was the verdict of the people upon his conduci? Instead of the hundred Democratic majority given in 1838 for Messrs. Dickerson and others, they threw nearly Two THOUSAND Democratic majority. A more triumphant and emphatic expression of the voice of the people could hardly have been given. Could it be believed that, after the people had thus set their seal of disapprobation upon the Executive of the State, gentlemen would have the unblushing hardihood to appear here and claim seats under the "broad seal" of that Executive?

Mr. S. had, in the Maine Legislature, opposed the going into the investigation of the right to a seat-not contested by another-which had been gained by a majority of the people's votes, and which, by any evidence before the House, was not doubted or disputed. He would do so now. He