reduce the salary of this officer the sum of five hundred dollars, while you leave the salaries of other officers, of not more laborious or responsible stations, where they are. Let me say it is not merely intelligence and industry that is required there. Integrity in that officer might have been bartered within the last three years during the monstrous influx of large claims for tens and fifty thousands of dollars. Sad experience in this Government has proved that integrity may be successfully assailed, even in positions of the highest trust. Lucre is, at the present day, the god of general idolatry; and when we have a man in a station of this importance, upon whose decisions millions depend, my judgment teaches me that, as sensible and practical men, we had better not, for the paltry cousideration of five hundred dollars annually, risk the great interests lodged in that bureau. But if the present incumbent will consent to continue in the office at twenty-five hundred dollars a year, can we, in the exercise of a spirit of just liberality and a judicious appreciation of faithful labors, reduce his salary? I consider this reduction most inauspicious, both as to the time and the person. By the fourth section of the bill, you propose to transfer the business which has been hitherto done in the Navy Department to this office-a change demanded by a variety of considerations-looking to the protection of the public revenue, and prompt action upon the applications of indigent and meritorious claimants. Although the number of pensioners for Revolutionary service is daily decreasing, except under the act of granting pensions to widows, yet the amount of labor will not be lessened for the next twelve months, at least; and there are a large number of claims under the act of 1832--probably twelve or fifteen hundred-which ought to be taken up for re-examination, with the light of additional rolls and record evidence, which the Department has cbtained since their suspension. I have no doubt that many of those cases were just, and that a re-examination will show that the claim. ants, if living, and, if not, their widows or heirs, are entitled to the benefit of that act. But this the Commissioner cannot do, and proceed with the current business of the office, for at least a year to come. The bill proposes to continue the office for three years only, and those three years mus: be, it is perfectly obvious, as the last three have been, devoted to constant labor. Although you transfer the clerk from the Navy Department to the Pension Office, you still add greaily to the responsibility of the Commissioner. To this point I will read the testimony of the Secretary of the Navy. In his last annual report the Secretary says.

"The multiplication of these laws, and the various constructions placed upon them at differeut times, seem to indicate the propriety of adopting a less complicated system. I would also take the occasion to state that, whatever disposition may be made of the subject, it has become necessary to relieve the head of the Department from the labor and responsility of this portion of his duites.

"Almost every application for a pension involves the necessity of a close and critical examnation of testimony, together with a reference to various laws, and the time required to do this as it ought to be done, materially interferes with other and indispensable avocations."

Four weeks since, the Senate, upon my motion, took this bill up out of its order, and passed it; but the hopes that were then indulged have not been realized. The act of 1837 expired yesterday, the business of the office is suspended, its doors are closed, and I am not unmindful of the strong ob. jections to sending the bill back, still I should do injustice to my own convictions to yield to those objections. Let us do what is manifestly right, and leave the responsibility of the wrong where it belongs. If this proposition were embraced in a general scheme of reduction which would be relatively just, I should, perhaps, have nothing to object; though I think very erroneous presions are entertained with regard to the amount of labor performed in the various offices here, the ability and diligence which the subordinate of ficers bring to the performance of that labor, and the amount of salary that is indispensable for the

im

support of their families. I cannot omit this opportunity to remark that my acquaintance with those officers has led me to form a high estimate of their characters. They are no idlers; they earn their bread. Go into any of the various offices, and you will find no deficiency of those qualities which constitute the efficient officer and good citizen.

Upon this favorite theme of retrenchment, I have only to say, that, when gentlemen will move upon this subject with enlarged views and just objects, they shall not want my humble aid. Fortunately for myself, I have the honor to represent here, in part, a constituency who judge men by their acts, and not by their words. To them I commit the record of my votes in both wings of this Capitol; they will be somewhat more enduring and satisfactory than any professions which may pass away with the breath that utters them.

Is not the inequality, not to say injustice, of this measure obvious and glasing? What are the facts in relation to your other officers of similar grade? In 1831, a gentleman had charge of the Indian bu reau at a salary of $1,650; in 1832, the office of Commissioner of Indian Affairs was established at a salary of $3,000; in 1834, the gentleman at the head of the Patent Office received $1,500; in 1836, the office of Commissioner of Patents was established, and the salary fixed at $3,000. The same salaries are paid to your Register, your Comptrolleis, and your Auditors. Now, sir, I hazard nothing in saying that there is nothing which, upon grounds of relative ability, relative laber, and relative fidelity, can warrant the proposed distinction against this veteran officer. If salaries are to be reduced, let them be reduced together, and upon a fair and just scale, and do not direct all the force of your spirit of retrenchment against this individual, who, in his youth, performed good service, both in your army and navy, and who may be found in his office at all seasons-in autumn, winter, spring, and sultry summer-from eignt o'clock in the morning until late in the afternoon, devoting his energies, his great experience, and his thorough knowledge of this important branch of public business, to your service.

Mr. HUBBARD remarked that on yesterday, when this bill came from the House of Representatives, he moved that the Senate concur in the proposed amendment. He was at the time aware that his honorable colleague, who had this bill in charge, was necessarily absent from his seat; and, without knowing his views at all upon the subject, he moved a concurrence. He did this from a full conviction that a regard to the public interests demanded an immediate action upon this til. The office of Commissioner of Pensions, it was known, would expire with the expiration of the day. He then stated, what is now history, that if this bill was not passed before the adjournment of the Senate, the office would be closed before the reassembling of the Senate; that it was, therefere, of the utmost importance that the bill should be passed, and be passed without delay.

This, however, was not done. He had now heard his colleague, and he fully appreciated the feelings and sentiments which governed him. He was perfectly aware that the committee of which he is chairman, had reported the bill precisely as it had passed the Senate; and, as far as it respects the salary of the Commissioner, the bill reported was in perfect accordance with the existing law. He was perfectly aware, also, that his colleague was not the advocate of high salaries. His votes since the commencement of the present session offered sufficient evidence of that fact; and he differed not at all from him in the estimation he had given of the faithful and valuable services of the Commissioner of Pensions. Notwithstanding all this, he was now, as he was yesterday, in favor of concurring with the amendment proposed by the House of Representatives; and he would state the considerations which must control his vote.

This bill passed the Senate about four weeks ago. It came from the House just as the office of Commissioner of Pensons, was expiring. He knew not what had occasioned this delay. The only amendment proposed by that bratch was to reduce the salary of the Commissioner from

three thousand to twenty-five hundred dollars. He knew not, nor did he wish to know, the particular reasons which had induced the House to agree to that amendment. It had been done; and, for one, he was not disposed, at this hour, to return the bill again to the House. He could not tell whether they would insist upon their amendment, or whe ther they would recede from it, or whether they would not take up the bill until another four weeks had expired. He would not, therefore, return the bill to the House of Representatives, under existing circumstances, but he would concur, and concur at once; and if injustice should be meted out to the Commissioner by the adoption of the amendment, it will be in the power of Congress to correct the error in some future legisla tion. And why would he not now concur in the amendment of the House? Why would he not send the bill back to the House? For this reason: the office is now closed-the doors are now barred and the old men and women who have claims under your existing laws, cannot gain admittance to present them at the appropriate department. The whole pension system is now suspended; and he would not, therefore, if he could prevent it, delay the passage of this bill a single moment. It should have been done before the adjournment on yesterday. The suspension of any one branch of the public service should not have been permitted for a single hour.

In conclusion, he would again say, that he fully appreciated the views of his colleague; but as he deprecated further delay--as he regarded it as most injurious to the public service, and most prejudicial to the particular interests of those seeking :: to obtain pensions-he should feel constrained to give his vote in favor of concurring in the amend

ment.

Mr. CLAY of Alabama was willing to accord all that was said by his friend [Mr. PIERCE] from New Hamp hire in favor of the ability and faithfulness of the Commissioner. According to the statement made, he had originally received $2,500 for his duties, and he did not presume he was more faithful now than then, or had more labor to per form. That he was competent and experienced Mr. C. was willing to admit; but, at the same time, he was not prepared to admit that he was the only man that was so. Able and efficient men might be had to do the duties for the sum offered by the House. The Judges of his own State got less, and the Secretary of State five hundred dollars less; and why was it that a clerk should be better compensa. fed than the highest judicial authorities of the Sales? The time for retrenchment with him was whenever the question was presented for his action, and he should now call on the other side of the House-to those who had been loud in their professions on the scorce of economy; who had descanted so eloquently on the subjects of reform and retrenchment to rally to his side, and aid him in carrying out the measure, and he could assure them they should have his aid and support in all similar

measures.

Mr. GRUNDY spoke of the official worth of the Commissioner, from his own knowledge, while acting as attorney Genral; his attention to his du ties was such as to commend him to the conside ration of the country. He did not think $3,000 too high for the services, especially in a city where living was so high as in this; but he could not consent to postpone the bill. As far as his vote was concerned, he should feel compelled to give it in favor of a concurrence with the amendment of the House.

Mr. WRIGHT thought that to make the reduction in an insulated ease was wrong, but he hoped the Senate would concur in the amendment made by the House, as the doors of the office were now closed, and the pensioners could not be attended to in consequence of it.

Mr. PIERCE said the bill had passed the Senate four weeks since, and has been returned now with but this amendment. He was for sending it back again, and for letting the responsibility of closing the office rest where it belongs. If the House chooses, let them keep it four weeks longer, and justify themselves to their constiuents if they

can.

Mr. WALL wished to say a word in explanation of his vote. He came there this morning with an intention to vote against concurrence in the amendment; but the fact of the office being closed had changed that determination. He never could consent to increase labor, and at the same time diminish the salary. He protested against the prine ple that salaries should be proportioned to the facility of getting the situations filled; that because persons could be found to take office for less than others received, therefore salaries were to be reduced. We might get plenty to do our duties (said Mr. W.) for six, five, or four dollars per day-ay, for nothing at all: but was that an argument in favor of reduc'ion? The per diem which he received he thought only a fair compensation for the duties, and he was free to acknowledge that he would not take the station for less; but no doubt there were many that would. If the whole of the United States was searched, there could not Elbe found a man more thoroughly acquainted with the duties of his office than the one selected to commence the experiment of economy on, and he could not think of recording his vote for concurring in the amendment of the House without bearing testimony to the merit of that in ividnal. But the citizens of the State he had the honor in part to represent, was largely interested in pensions, received for meritorious services in the Revolution, and would suffer much inconvenience by an interruption of its operations, and he was compelled, by these circumstances, to vote in favor of concurring In the amendment.

Mr. PRENTISS expressed his determination to concur in the amendment. He made no objections to individuals; but would concur in any amendment where salaries were to be reduced, until they were graduated by the scale of State offi

cers.

Mr. WHITE said, if the question were as to an original office, he would not hesitate in concurring P with the House; but he thought there were principles involved, which should not be sacrificed to any question of mere convenience. It would he a dangerous precedent for future legislation if we were to commit an official impropriety on a mere question of convenience. From his knowledge of 1 the rules of the other House, he had confidence enough to send it back, and then if that body would not recede, why then it would be time to yield to 1 the convenience of the measure. Mr. W. said he was in favor of equal salaries with the States; but, in a city like this, it would be offering a premium on celibacy, as a man of family could not live on less than $3,000. He was for non-concuriing, and letting the responsibility rest on those upon whom It ought to fall.

L

Mr. PRESTON hoped the Senate would not concur in the amendment. He thought the advantage to be gained by such a step would more than counterbalance all the inconvenience. It was not to be supposed that more than 48 hours, at furthest, would intervene between that time and perfecting the bill. There was another matter that he desired should be reached, and which he believed it was also the wish of some members of the other body should be changed. By this bill the Navy Pension Fund was transferred to this office-most improperly, as he thought; and sending it back would give an opportunity of amending it in that particular.

Mr. CLAY of Alabama said the Senator from South Carolina had tired too soon in his race of retrenchment and reform. In a little discussion, the other day, upon the reduction of a salary, he had understood the Senator to pledge himself to go as far as he (Mr. C.) would in that praiseworthy object. But it appeared that, in the very next step, the Senator was disposed to desert him. He wanted to see something like consistency preserved.

Mr. PRESTON said there was a pruriency in the imagination of the gentleman in fixing upon him the charge of inconsistency. What were the facts of the case? When he had advocated a concurrence with the amendment of the House the other day, there was not a reduction, but the creation of a new office-a niere mechanical office, not requiring intellectual research. This was a very different matter. He was for giving a fair com

pensation for mechanical labor, and a liberal compensation for intellectual labor. This would be the best economy. He was willing that there should be a general retrenchment of the expenditures of the Government; but not in striking at the salaries of meritorious men. He was not disposed to go into a field, thrashing on this side and on that, striking at the peace and comfort of families. If the Senator desired really to retrench the expenses, he could find sufficient in the numerous light-houses and harbors; and in that case he would cheerfully go with him. He made these remarks with a view to correct any impressions that might have been made by his observations of the other day. He did not go for putting the offices up to the lowest bidders. He was for giving such salaries as would comport with liberal justice, and the dignity of the Government.

Mr. CLAY of Alabama said the Senator from South Carolina had certainly beaten a retreat from the ground occupied by him the other day. It was within the recollection of Senators that, when a similar question was before them the other day, that gentleman had taken very broad ground in his ideas of retrenchment. He had even suggested a reduction of the per diem of Senators. Now, when we were making new appointments, and fixing new compensations, he did expect the Senator from South Carolina would have gone with him in the contemplated reform. He found it very easy for some gentlemen to talk of retrenchment and reform, but it was very difficult to get a case which And even they considered a proper one to act on. those who boasted most loudly of their economy, were apt to falter when brought to a vote.

Mr. PRESTON said, if, by economy, the gentleman means to take $500 out of the pocket of a meritorious officer, he would not do it; or to take $100,000 out of the Treasury to make a road in Alabama, he would not go with him in either case. When he found a valuable public servant, he could not find it in his nature to cut him down the meagre pittance of $500. His wish was to pay all the public officers well; he thought the system of reduced salaries the worst species of extravagance. Mr. CRITTENDEN did not know the officer alluded to personally; but he believed, from all he could understand, that his official capacity justified all that had been said. The business was one certainly of no ordinary trust. Mr. C. wished, when the matter of retrenchment was gone into, that it should be general, not partial, in its bearing. He should vote against the amendment of the House.

Mr. PIERCE said he reported the bill containing the clause which had been objected to by the Senator from South Carolina, (the transfer of the Navy Pension Fund to the office of the Commissioner,) but it had been done after consultation with the Commissioner of Pensions, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of War, and the chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs, and had received their full concurrence.

The question was then taken on concurring with the amendment of the House, and carried-yeas 30, nays 13, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Allen, Anderson, Benton, Brown, Buchanan, Clay of Alabama, Clayton, Davis, 'Dixon, Fulton, Grundy, Henderson, Hubbard, King, Linn, Mouton, Nicholas, Norvell, Phelps, Prentiss, Roane, Robinson, Sevier, Strange, Sturgeon, Tappan, Wall, Williams, Wright, and Young-30.

NAYS-Messrs. Betts, Calhoun, Crittenden, Knight, Lumpkin, Merrick, Pierce, Porter, Fres ton, Spence, Tallmadge, Webster, and White-13. So the amendment was concurred in, and the bill finally passed.

THE SPECIAL ORDER.

The report of the Select Committee on the assumption of State debts was then taken up, and Mr. GRUNDY addressed the Senate at leng h, and with great ability, in reply to the various objections against the report. Without concluding, Mr. G. gave way for a motion to go into Executive session.

After which, the Senate adjourned,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WEDNESDAY, March 4, 1840.

As soon as the journal had been read, Mr. PETRIKIN asked leave to offer the following resolution, which was read for information:

Resolved, That the Committee of Accounts be instructed to report to this House all the facts in relation to the furnishing this House with stationery by the CLERK,including the difference of price paid for the stationery furnished to the Senate and that furnished this House; and, further, that they report all the facts relative to contracts made by the CLERK with S. D. Langtree for lithographing certain maps authorized by the last Congress to be published, and the price paid for the copperplate engraving of the same maps published by order of the Senate; and that said committee have power to send for persons and papers in order to enable them to comply with the foregoing instructions.

Objection being made, Mr. PETRIKIN moved a suspension of the rules, to enable him to offer it. And his motion prevailing, the resolution was received.

Mr. CHARLES JOHNSTON moved to amend by striking out all after the word resolved, and inserting the resolutions offered by him last week, as follows:

Whereas it is alleged that the Clerk of this House, without the authority of law, or sanction ot the House of Representatives, did, on the 25th day of March, and 23d day of December last, make two several contract, in writing, with one S. D. Langtree, and by which contracts said Langtree agreed to furnish all the stationery, and exccute all the lithographing and copper-plate engraving which should be required for the Twenty-sixth Congress, as may more fully appear by referring to said contracis respectively:

And whereas it is alleged that, in pursuance of said contract or contracts, said Langiree (who is neither stationer, lithographer, nor engraver) bas furnished and delivered to said CLERK, for the use of this House, a large quantity of stationery, and has presented his bill for the same, amounting to $19,521 64; and that said stationery (particularly the paper) is of an inferior quality, and is charged at price equal to 20 per cent. above the usual prices of stationery of the best quality, and by which difference of price and quality this Government (if said bill is allowed) would sustain a loss of more than $4,000 for the stationery already delivered; and, that, if said contracts should be sanctioned by this House, and continued in force during the Twenty-sixth Congress, the Government would be subjected to the sacrifice of more than $15,000, arising from the employment of another person to perform the duties which the CLERK himself is required to perform by the resolution of the House passed March 3, 1827, and under which it has been the uniform practice of the Clerks of this House to furnish the stationery, until the making of the contracts above referred to: Therefore,

Resolved, That the Clerk of this House has no power or authority to make any prospective contract which will require an application of moneys out of the contingent fund of this House, or an appropriation by Congress to satisfy the same, without the express authority of this House, and that the contracts referred to in the foregoing preamble are wholly inoperative and void.

Resolved, nevertheless, That if the said Langt ee shali (in writing) elect to give up and cancel the said two contracts, then, and in that event, the Committee on Accounts are hereby authorized to audit and allow to him his bill for stationery already delivered, and services performed, under said contracts, subject to such deductions as ought to be made therefrom on account of the quality and the prices charged therefor. And that said committee have power to send for persons and papers.

Mr. J. then made some remarks on the principal points of his amendment, but more especially on the power of the Clerk to make contracts. The two contracts made with Mr. Langtree in March and December last were read at the Clerk's table, after which Mr. J. desired to know on what day of De cember it was on which the Clerk was re-elected.

The SPEAKER said it was the 21st day of that month.

Mr. JOHNSTON then contended that the contracts referred to were made by Mr. GARLAND, the Clerk, without any official authority, and for which the House was not bound. He disclaimed imputing to the Clerk any moral turpitude in his conduct, but considered the contracts as entirely unauthorized, as they were made after his official existence had expired. Mr. J. then

went on to suppose a number of cases in which the House might be imposed upon by permitting the Clerk to employ a subgent for the procuring of stationery, instead of going directly to the paper makers himself. Among other matters, he referred to the single article of sealing wax. He supposed that a sub agent employed by the CLERK, might furnish to the House the best Victoria wax, done up in splendid paper boxes, which cost two cents each, at $2 50 per box, not containing quite a pound, when the very same kind of wax, in similar boxes, could be purchased for $125 per pound. He also supposed a case where the sub-agent might go to Mr. Hudson, the celebrated paper maker, and purchase letter paper at $5 25 per ream, paying for it by a draft on the United States Bank, whose notes were ten per cent. below par. Also, that the same paper was afterwards brought to this city, and sold to Government at $6 70 per ream. He further supposed that a sub-agent might go to New York city and purchase paper of an inferior quality, for which he might charge the House $6 per ream, when the Secretary of the Senate was buying the same kind of paper for $3 50 per ream, with a reduction of 5 per cent. for cash.

Mr. J. then adverted to the fact of the CLEK centracting with Mr. Langtree for lithography. He asked why the CLERK went to Mr. L. who was not a lithographer, but who must necessarily go to an artist to get the work done. He thought Mr. Langiree exhibited more skill in making a contract, than in the arts, and demanded why the House should be burdened with the commission necessarily charged indirectly by a sub-agent, for performing a duty belonging to the CLERK?

Mr. DROMGOOLE respectfully asked the chairman of the Committee of Elections whether he was not ready to report on the New Jersey case.

Mr. CAMPBELL, the chairman, replied in the affirmative. After some debate on a point of order, arising from a misapprehension on the part of Mr. CHARLES JOHNSTON,

Mr. DROMGOOLE said that, from the answer just given by the chairman of the Committee of Elections, he should make but a few brief remarks on the question before the House. He then rcferred to the 96th rule, which makes it the duty of the Committee on Accounts to investigate all matters of expenditure. He would not submit the question as to whether that committee had the subject already under consideration, because the rule in question made it their imperative duty so to do. But he would ask what was the course pursued by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. JOHNSTON,] a member of the commi tee. He was actually shrinking from an investigation by the Committee. Was it not discourteous to the committe for the gentleman to come here without authority from the committee. [Mr. D. here explained that he used the term "discourteous" in a parliamentary sense] He appealed to the House whether it was sufficiently acquainted with the law and the fact, so as to determine at once, without investigation, that the whole contract made by the CLERK was contrary to law. He was surprised at the course of the gentleman from New York, in proposing that the House should declare the whole contract void and fraudulent, without proper investigation. It reminded him of the conduct of one of the infernal judges, whose practice it was to decide first, and hear testimony afterwards. Mr. D. asked what would be thought of a judge of our courts who should, at the request of an advocate decide, without investigation, a case which properly belonged to the jury. He had no disposition to screen either the CLERK or Mr. Langtree, as his vote should show; but he wished the subject to have

a fair investigation before the proper committee, and did not wish to vote blindfolded.

Mr. D. concluded by moving the previous ques. lion.

Mr. LAWRENCE and Mr. JOHNSON of Va. both appealed to him to withdraw his motion, but he refused to do so.

Mr. PETRIKIN modified his resolution (so as to make it read as given above.)

The question on the second to the previous question was then taken by tellers-Messrs. RIVES and DAVIES of Pennsylvania acting as tellers-and decided in the affirmative-ayes 97, noes 73.

The question "Shall the main question be now put?" coming up,

Mr. JOHNSTON of New York called for the yeas and nays; which having been ordered, the question was taken and decided in the affirmative -yeas 110, nays 79.

The main question was then taken, and decided unanimously in the affirmative-yeas 183, nays

none.

Mr. JONES of Virginia submitted a resolution that the House resolve itself in a Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering the bill authorizing the issuing of Treasury notes, and that the said bill shall have precedence over all other business until disposed of.

Objection being made by several gentlemen to the reception of the resolution,

Mr. JONES moved a suspension of the rules to enable him to offer it.

Mr. CAMPBELL expressed a wish that the resolution might be laid on the table in order that he might have an opportunity of submitting a report from the Committee of Elections, on the New Jersey case.

Mr. BELL inquired whether the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means wished to go into Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering the Sub-Treasury bill. If so, he would vote for the motion.

Mr. JONES of Virginia replied that he was as anxious as any gentleman to get up that bil'; and the only reason why it had not been taken up was, that it had not been reached in the regular course of business.

The question was then taken on the motion to suspend the rules, and lost (there not being a vote of two thirds)-yeas 116, nays 69, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Judson Allen, Hugh J. Anderson, Atherton, Banks, Barnard, Beatty, Beirne, Biddie, Blackwell, Boyd, Briggs, Aaron V. Brown, Albert G. Brown, Burke, Sampson H. Butler, William O. Butler. Carroll, Casey, Chapman, Chinn, Clifford, Coles, Conner, Mark A. Cooper, Dana, Davee, John Davis, Jolin W. Davis, Dawson, Doan, Doig, Dromgoole, Duncan, Earl, Eastman, Elv, Fine, Fisher, Fietcher, Floyd, Formance, James Garland, Gerry, Griffin, Habersham, Hall, Hand, John Hastings, Hawkins, Hill of N. C. Hillen, Holleman, Holmes, Hook, Hopkins, Howard, Hubbard, Jameson, Joseph Johnson, Cave Johnson, Nathaniel Jones, John W. Jones, Keim, Kemble, Lawrence, Leet, Lewis, Lowell, Lucas, McClellan, McCulloch, McKay, Mallory, Marchand, Medill, Miller, Montgomery, Samuel W. Morris, Newhard, Parmenter, Parris, Paynter, Petrikin, Prentiss, Proffit, Ramsey, Randall, Rhatt, Rives, Edward Rogers, James Rogers, Samuels, Shaw, Shepard, Albert Smith, John Smith, Thonias Smith, Starkweather, Steenrod, Sumter, Swearingen, Sweeny, Taliaferro, Taylor, Philip F. Thomas, Waddy Thompson, Jacob Thompson, Turney, Vanderpoel, David D. Wagener. Watterson, Weller, Wick, Jared W. Williams, Henry Williams, and Worthington-116.

NAYS-Messrs. Alford, John W. Allen, Andrews, Bell, Bond, Brockway, Calhoun, W. B. Campbell, Carter, Chittenden, Clark, Crabb, Crockett, Cross, Cushing, Edward Davies, Garret Davis, Dennis, Dillett, Edwards, Fillmore, Rice Garland, Gates, Gentry, Goggin, Graves, Green, Grinnell, William S. Hastings, Hawes, Hoffman, Hunt, James, Chas. Johnston, William Cost Johnson, Kempshall, King, Lincoln, McCarty, Mason, Mitchell, Monroe, Morgan, Calvary Morris, Nisbet, Os. horne, Pope, Randolph, Rayner, Ridgway, Russell, Saltonstall, Sergeant, Simonton, Truman Smith, Stanly, Storrs, Stuart, Tillinghast, Toland, Triplett, Trumbull, Underwood, Peter J. Wagner, John White, Thomas W. Williains, Lewis Williams, Christopher H. Williams, and Sherrod Williams-69.

Mr. CAMPBELL asked leave to make a report from the Committee of Elections.

The SPEAKER said that reports were not in order.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Then, sir, I offer the report as a question of privilege, under the directions of the House, which were that the committee should report forthwith.

The SPEAKER was of opinion that it was not a question of privilege. The introduction of the word forthwith into the order of the House could not make the report a special order, without a vote of two-thirds.

Mr. CAMPBELL then moved a suspension of the rules to enable him to present the report.

Mr. CROSS desired, before he voted on the question, respectfully to ask of the chairman of the committee if he was prepared to report every thing that the committee directed him to report. Mr. C. was called to order by several; when

The SPEAKER said that deba'e was not in or der on a motion to suspend the rules.

The question was then taken on suspending the rules, and decided in the negative, yeas 104, nays 78, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Adams, Judson Allen, Hugh J. Anderson, Atherton, Banks, Beatty, Beirne. Biddle, Blackwell, Boyd, Aaron V. Browd, Burke, Sampson H. Butler, W.O. Butler, J Campbell, Carroll, Casey, Chapman, Clifford, Coles, Connor, Mark A. Cooper, Cross, Dina, Davec, John Davis, John W. Davis, Doig, Dromgoole, Duncan, Earl, Eastman. Ely, Fine. Fisher, Fletcher, Floyd, Fornance, James Garland, Gerry, Goggin, Griffin, Hammond, Hand, John Hastings, Hillen, Holleman, Holmes, Hook, Jameson, Joseph Johnson, Cave Johnson, Nathaniel Jones, John W. Jones, Keim, Kemble, Leadbetter, Leet, Lewis, Lowell, Lucas, McClellan, McCul loh, McKay, Marchand, Medill, Miller, Montgomery, Samuel W. Morris. Newhard. Parish, Parmenter, Parris, Paynter, & Petrikin, Pickens, Prenties, Ramsey, Rhett, Rives, Edward gi Rogers, James Rogers, Samuels, Shaw, Shepard, Albert Smith, John Smith, Thomas Smith, Starkweather, Steenrod, Sumter, Swearingen, Sweeny, Taylor, Philip F. Thomas, J. Thompson, Vanderpoel, David D. Wagener, Watterson, Wel ler, Wick, Jared W. Williams, Henry Williams, and Worthington-101.

NAYS-Messrs. Alford, John W. Allen, Andrews, Barnard, Bell, Bond, Briggs, Brockway, William B. Campbell, Carter, Chinn, Chittenden, Clark, Crabb, Curtis, Cushing, Garret Davis, Dawson, Dennis, Dillett, Edwards, Evans, Fillmore, Rice Garland, Gates, Gentry, Graves, Green, Habersham, Hall, Wm. S Hastings, Hawes, Hill of Virginia, Hoffman, Hunt, James, Charles Johnston, Wm. Cost Johnson, Kemp. shall, Lawrence, Lincoln, McCarty, Mason, Mitchell, Monroe, Morgan, C. Morris, Nisbet, Ogle, Osborne, Pope, Proffit, Randall, Randolph, Rariden, Rayner. Ridgway, Russell, Saltonstall, Sergeant. Truman Smith, Stanly, Storrs, Stuart, Talia ferro, Waddy Thompson, Tillinghast, Toland, Triplett, Trum bull, Underwood, Peter J. Wagner, John White, Thomas W. Williams. Lewis Williams, Christopher H. Williams, and Sherrod Williams-78.

Mr. VANDERPOEL asked leave of the House to introduce a series of resolutions referring the varous subjects in the President's message to the ap propriate committees.

Objections being made by several members, Mr. VANDERPOEL moved a suspension of the rules.

Mr. EVANS of Maine said that the motion of the gentleman was irregular. The usual course was to refer the whole message to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, where it was discussed before referring the several parts of it to the appropriate committees. If the genteman would modity his motion so as to refer the message to the Committee of the Whole House he would vote for it.

Mr. VANDERPOEL. If the message gets into Committee of the Whole we should never get it out again.

The resolutions were then read for the information of the House.

Mr. ADAMS desired to know if it was the gentleman's object, after the expiration of two months of the session, to send all the different subjects to the committees without previously discussing them in Committee of the Whole. If so, the gentlemaa intended to eff. ct an entire revolution in the practice of the House.

Mr. VANDERPOEL would respond to the inquiry of the gentleman from Massachusetts. The friends of the Administration were not justly chargeable with a delay in the reference of the mes

sage.

[Here Mr. V. was interrupted with repeated calls to order]

The CHAIR s'a'ed that the debate was not in or.ler.

Mr. VANDERPOEL then said he would make a direct answer to the gentleman's inquiry. It was not his intention that the message should go to the Committee of the Whole.

The question was then taken, and decided in the negative-there not being a vote of two-thirdsyeas 104, nays 85.

Mr. LAWRENCE moved to refer the message of the President to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. CLIFFORD moved to amend the motion by excepting from it the subject of the Northeastern boundary, and referring it to the Committee on Foreign Affairs,

Mr. LAWRENCE said that could be done by general consent. There would be no objection, he presumed, to referring the Northeastern boundary question to the Committee on Foreign Affairs as soon as the message got into Committee of the Whole.

Mr CLIFFORD then observed that, with that Funderstanding, he had no objection to the motion of the gentleman from Massachusetts.

The question was then taken on Mr. LAW-RENCES motion, and it was carried without a division.

Mr. DROMGOOLE inquired if it was then in order to move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, for the purpose of considering the President's message.

The SPEAKER said the motion would not then be in order.

Mr. DROMGOOLE. Then, sir, I give notice that I shall move every day, at one o'clock, to go into Committee of the Whole, until the motion shall prevail.

It being now a quarter past 5 o'clock,

The SPEAKER proceeded to call the committeas for reports, (pursuant to the rule which sets apart one hour for the same,) commencing with the Committee on Public Lands, where the call had last been suspended.

Mr. HUBBARD, from the Committee on Public Lands, reported

A bill to annex a certain tract of land to the Coosa land district, in the State of Alabama, and for other purposes;

A bill for the relief of Suttler Stephens; and A bill establishing an additional land district in the State of Alabama;

which were severally referred to the Commitee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, from the same committee, reported

A bill for the removal of the land office from Chocchuma, Mississippi, to Granada, in said State; a. and

A bill for the relief of Jas. L. Cockson; which were referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. T. also made an unfavorable report on the Fpetiion of Harrison R. Blanch, and asked that the cmmittee be discharged from the further consideration thereof; which was agreed to.

3.

1.

Mr. WHITE of Kentucky, from the same com. mittee, reported unfavorably on the perition of John Cole; which report was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed; also,

A bill for the relief of the heirs of William Wilhams, deceased; and

A bill to allow farther time to the trustee of Cen re College to dispose of the lands heretofore granted for the Deaf and Dumb Asylum in the State of Kentucky;

which were read twice, and referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. Mr. JAMES GARLAND, from the same committee, reported

A bill for the relief of the representatives of John Gumbale;

A bill for the relief of Mary Tucker; which were read twice, and referred to the Commitee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. GRAHAM, from the Committee for the District of Columbia, report d a resolution to appropriate $3000 for a temporary ferry between the broken parts of the Potomac bridge; which was referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, an ordered to be printed.

Mr. BEIRNE, from the same committee, reported a bill to incorporate the Washington City BeLevolent Society.

Mr. JOHNSON of Maryland, from the same committee, reported a resolution, that the Committee for the District of Columbia be authorized to employ a Clerk, and allow him $4 per day; which resolution was rejected-yeas 62, nays 86.

Mr. SERGEANT, from the Committee on the Judiciary, asked to be discharged from the further consideration of the bill for changing the time of

holding the term of the District Court of Alabama; which was agreed to.

Mr. S. also reported

A bill for the relief of the heirs and representatives of Thomas Atkinson, deceased;

A bill to enable the United States to discharge liens and incumbrances upon certain real estates; A bill confirming to the State of Indiana certain lands in that State; and

A bill for the relief of John H. Sheppard; which were severally referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. HOFFMAN, from the same committee, reported

A bill for the relief of certain debtors of the Uni ed States, and to repeal certain acts relating to such debtors; which was referred to the Committee of the Whole, and ordered to be printed.

The call for reports had proceeded only so far as the Committee on the Judiciary, when the hour having elapsed,

Mr. R. GARLAND called for the orders of the day.

Pending which motion, the House adjourned.

IN SENATE,

THURSDAY. March 5, 1940. BANKRUPT LAW.

Mr. BENTON presented a petition from the city of New York, signed by Wm. S. Parrott and one hundred and fifty others, praying for the establishment of a uniform bankrupt law in the United States.

Mr. BENTON said that the petitioners in sending their petition to hun, a Senator froni another State, while their own State was represented on this floer, clearly expected from him something more than its mere presentation; they evidently expected him to say something on the subject-matter of the petition, and probably of his own sentiments in relation to it. In this he had no objection to gratify them. He had been long enough in the Senate, and attentive enough to questions of public interest, to have formed an opinion in relation to the bankrupt question; and, having formed it, he had no objection to express it on any proper occasion.

ago.

Assuming the present to be a proper occasion, he would go on to say that, twice since he had been a member of the Senate, the subject of a general bankrupt law had been pressed upon Congress-once in the House of Representatives near twenty years ago, and again in the Senate about a dozen years With the first of these movements he had nothing to do, the bill wich originated in the House of Representatives hav. ing been rejected in that body, without coming to the Senate; in the second movement he acted a decided part, and was one of twelve who then voted to include banks in the general law against bankrupts. In the final question he voted against the bill; and should so vote again in relation to a general bankrupt law which should not be applicable to corporations as well as to persons.

Mr. B went on to say that there was a general movement going on at this time, in the principal cities, in favor of a nation. al bankrupt law; and petitions were daily arriving in the Senate in favor of the object. All this was very natural after the wrecks which had been made in the commercial world by the expansions, contractions, and explosions of the paper system within the last seven years. It was all very natural; but to give a chance of success to the movement, it must emerge from the narrow boundaries of a class, and spread out upen a broad basis, and assume a general and national form. A bankrupt bill for merchants and traders only, cannot be expected to pass: it has been tried often and has failed. To fail again would be the inevitable fate of such a movement, and that by a larger vote than heretofore; for all the reasons for including other classes have now become stronger than ever. Persons who are not merchants or traders, have been carried away by the spirit of the times, and have been involved in debts from which they see no means of extrication. These have a right to the relief of a bankrupt law, as well as those regularly engaged in trade; at the same time they should not be subject to the compulsory ap plication of the law. With them the application of the law should be voluntary and optional: it should only be applied to them on their own petition; while with those regularly engaged in trade, and particularly bound to know the laws of trade, and to obey these laws, the application of the law should be com pulsory, and should take effect upon the petition of a given proportion of the creditors. This extension of the principle of the act would make it universal in its ap plication to persons; its extension to corporations would be all that would be wanting to make it entirely national, and fitly applicable to every case in which the relation of debtor and creditor existed. Now the question is, why should not these corporations be subject to the same law for bankrup's to which natural persons are subject? and the answer is, that they ought to be so subject-that their number-their wealth--their privileges their duties-their conduct-their artificial structure-their relation to the community, and the relation of the community to them; their power over the States in forcing a Violation of contracts, and the tender of paper money, and the duty of Congress to prevent the States from impairing contracts, or making any thing but gold and silver a tender is payment of debts; all these circumstances and considerations point out corporations, not merely as the fit and proper, but as the pre-eminently fit and proper subjects for the application of a bankrupt

law.

Their number is excessive, and the number of persons he. longing to each corporation is great. Take a single branch of these corporations-the banks-and see the number of persons interested in them, and see what a gap in a national law their exemption from the bankrupt act would make. Their number is computed at near one thousand; at an average of forty or fifty stockholders to each, a mass of forty or fifty thousand men would be given; all to be exempt from the operation of a na tional law. Yet this is only the beginning-it is the commence

ment only of the exempted classes. The banks, numerous as they are, are nothing but a unit in the vast suin of the corporations. The whole Union is filled with these artificial beingsbodies of men associated for trade or business-protected by acts of incorporation, and engaged in every conceivable pursuit of which the head or hand of man is capable. To say that there are ten thousand of these corporations in the Union, would be to make a guess in a case where certainty is unattainable, and where the guess would be as apt to be under as to be over the mark. At the small estimate of twenty or thirty members to each of these corporations, there would result a body of two or three hundred thousand men to be exempted from a law called uniform and national.

The wealth of these corporations is great; the property which they hold is enormous, and they constitute themselves debtors to the whole community. Associated wealth is now the order of the day; chartered incorporations possess an immense proportion of the wealth of the country. In subjecting the property, debts, and effects of an ordinary merchant or trader, to distribution under a bankrupt law, I have no idea of exempting from the same process the immense and almost boundless wealth held by chartered and associated companies.

The privileges of corporations are also great. They possess great and extraordinary privileges; and I have no idea of adding to the number of these privileges by exempting them from the operation of a law directed against other debtors. They have the benefit of all the laws against debtors; if a bankrupt bill is passed, they will have the benefit of that also again.st those who are in debt to them. They will be included in the list of creditors for a pro rata distribution of the debtor s effects. Then why exempt them from the effects of a law against themselves, the benefit of which they have against others? These corporations have privileges enough already, and far too many! It is not extension, but diminution of privileges, which they ought to look for. Many of them pay no taxes; the property of the stockholders is not liable for the debts of the institution; they sue their debtors, sell their property, and put their bodies in jail. They have the privilege of stamp. ing bits of paper with figures and pictures, and forcing it upon the community for money; they have the privilege of usury; for they may lend, and that by law, three or more paper dollars for each silver one they possess. In addition to all this, they take the privilege of becoming bankrupt when they please. They pracuse bankruptcy when and how they please: they have given examples enough of that within these three years past: and is it to be tolerated, that these corporations, in addition to all their other vast privileges and exemptions from law, are also to have the privilege of being bankrupt, and afflicting the country with the evils of bankruptcy, without being them selves subject to the laws of bankruptcy?

The duties of these corporations make them peculiarly fit for the remedies of a bankrupt law. Their duties are to pay money, and to pay it punctually. They deal in money; they live by dealing in it: they get rich by dealing in it; and they get possession of the actual money of the country, by promising to pay it back again when wanted. They receive depositer, than which nothing can be more sacred, nor impose a higher obligation to return with fidelity. They exact a credit from the whole comunity, by their promise to pay on demand the amount of the notes they issue. It is their duty to pay the e deposites and these notes, and to pay with fidelity and punctuality. It is their sacred duty to do so; and if they fail in that duty, they are far more fit and proper subjects for the operation of a bankrupt law than the ordinary merchant and trader.

The conduct of these corporations is another reason for subjecting them to the bankrupt law, and that conduct consists in refusing to pay when they can pay! Disability is one thing -disinclination is another. Not to be able to pay, may be unfortuna e; not to be willing to pay, must be criminal; and this is the case with the greater part of the non-paying banks of the Union. They affirm their ability to pay: most of them deny that they were under any necessity to stop payment; and affi m that they only did so because others had set the example: some of them in fact are shipping millions of specie to Europe, whe denying a shilling to their depositors and note holders at home: and many of them resist resumption by others as well as by themselves. This is the conduct of the non-paying banks; and it is evil conduct-bad conduct-misconduct and eminently entities them to the most rigorous treatment against bankrupts. The artificial structure, and the trustee character of these corporations, is another argument in favor of subjecting the m to the bankrupt process. They are artificial, not natural be ings: they are trustees, not owners, of the property of the cor poration. If the natural man, made by the hand of the Almighty, impressed with his image, and endowed with inherent aid inalienable rights by his Creator-one of which is the right of acquiring property; if this natural man may have the preperty taken out of his hands which is his own, which he has guned by his industry, or received by inheritance from his ancestors, or accepted as a portion with his wife; if this natural man may thus be stripped of his own, and see it placed in the hands of assignees for distribution among his creditors, with what face can the artificial being, called a corporation, which his neither parent, wife, nor child, and whose si agera are nothing but trustees, managing property which is is not their own-with what face can this artificial being, and its trustees, claim an exemption from a process to which the natural man, and his self-owned estate, is to be subject? In one case, the owner of the property is substituted by trustees; in the other case, it is only a new set of trustees substituting an old set. The assignees of a bankrupt's estate become the trustees of the property for the benefit of the creditors; and if the legal owner may be superseded and substituted by the se legal trustees, why may not a bank directory (who are nothing bur chartered trustees.) give place to other trus ees appointed by the law? The result of their management, supposing the bank over which they preside to commit an act of bankrupicy; the result of their management is a proof that they are either unfortunate, or incapable, or unfaithful trustees, and in either event, it is consonant to justice to change them for others; and this is all that a bankrupt law would propose to do. It would turn over their trust to a new set of trustees, to make a settlement of the concern, and to pay off, as far as possible, the persons to whom they had become indebted, and to whom they were either unwilling or unable to make payment, or among whom they might exercise favoritism; paying some, and refusing others.

The relation of these corporations to the community, and the relation of the community to them, is another strong and reculiar reason for subjecting them to the strong arm, and to the equitable provisions, of a bankrupt law. Of all the objects

upon the earth able to contract debts-of all the classes of debtors, natural or artificial-banks of circulation are the most fit and proper sobjects for bankrupt laws. Every part of their structure, and the whole course of their action, mark them out for the application of the remedy which the bankrupt laws apply. They are too strong for individuals to contend with; and therefore should be placed in contention with a strong power. They are too strong for State power; and therefore should be placed in contention with the power of the nited States; and happily, that power is vested in the United States by the Federal Constitution. AS BANKS, Congress cannot exercise any direct legislation over these insti tutions; as BANKRUPTS, they fall under its jurisdiction. All that Congress has to do then is to exercise its constitutional power over bankrupts; and it will present an authority strong enough to contend with banks, and to keep them in subordination to the laws of the country. Their course of action, still more than their great power, renders them peculiarly fit for the bankrupt process. They act in secret, and they exact a general credit from the community. Nobody knows their means, yet every body must trust them. They send "their promises to pay" far and wide: they push them into every body's hands: they make them small that they may get into the hands of small dealers-into the hands of the laborer, the widow, the child, the ignorant, and the helpless. Suddenly the bank stops payment: it refuses to pay, while professing

ability to pay and all these holders of its "promises" are repulsed from its door, and without remedy. A few on the spot get a little; the strong, and the favored, may get their due; the mass become the victims. If it is a suspension, they sell at a discount; if a failure, they lose all. For each holder of a small note to sue upon it, is a troublesome and losing business. The only adequate remedy-the only remedy that promises jice to the community-is the bankrupt remedy of assignees t distribute the effects. This makes the real effects available. When a bank stops, it has little or no specie; but it has or outh to have, a good mass of solvent debts. At present all these d bts are unavailable to the community: they go to a few large and favored creditors; and those who are most in needthe holders of the small notes-get nothing.

But a strong. er view remains to be taken of these debis. The mass of them are generally due from the stockholders and directors of the bank; and these gentlemen do not make themselves pay. They do not sue themselves, and sell their own property, and put their ewn bodies in jail. They serve others so. They sue, sell out, and imprison others; but as to themselves, who are the main debtors, it is quite another affair. They take their time, and usually wait till the notes of the bank are heavily depreciated, and then square off with a few cents in the dollar. They pay their notes in bank with their notes out of bank, bought at a dis count. Here, then, is a crying case for the bankrupt remedy. A commission of bankruptcy is the remedy for this evil. change of the trustees-a substitution of assignees in the place of the directory-is the way to make this class of debtors pay up. A prorata distribution is the way to do justice to all. Under the bankrupt remedy, every holder of a note, no matter how small in amount the note may be-no matter how far distant from the bank the holder may reside-on forwarding the note to the assignees, he will receive his rateable proportion of the bank's effects; and that without trouble, without expense, and without personal attention from himself.

means.

A

Besides these great reasons for applying a bankrupt law to corporations, there are other great purposes to be accomplished, and some most sacred duties to be fulfilled, by the same Our Constitution contains three most vital prohibitions upon the States, of which the Federal Government is the guardian and the guarantee, and which are now publicly trod den under foot. No State shalt emit bills of credit: no State shall make any thing but gold and silver a tender in pay. ment of debts: no State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts. So says the Constitution! So says that sacred fundamental law which it is the duty of every citi zon to protect, preserve, and defend. But a new power has sprung up among us, and has annulled all these prohibitions. That new power is the oligarchy of banks ! This oligar chy has done what the States dare not do. It has filled the whole land with hills of credit; for all admit that a bank note not convertible at the will of the holder into specie, is a bil of credit. It his set aside the constitutional currency, and inade paper money, and even depreciated paper, a forced tender in payment of every debt. It has violated its own contracts, aid compelled all individuals, and the Federal Government, and the State Governments, to violate theirs; and has obtained from sovereign States an express mction, or a silent acquiescence, in this double violation of sacred duties, and in this triple annulment of constitutional obligations. This is what the oligarchy of banks has done; this is what many of the banks are now doing; and he way to prevent these evils-the way to preserve, protec', and defend our Constitution in these vital particulars, and to do it without a collision with the States-is to exercise our constitutional power of applying a bankrupt law to bankrupt banks.

We go!

few days ago, in a great city, and in a large meeting of mixed politicians, the sentiment of including corporations in the provisions of a general bankrupt law. He alluded to the great meeting lately held in the city of New York, presided over by the Mayor, (Mr. Varian,) and attended by the business commu nity, without distinction of parties. In that meeting, Mr. But ler, the late Attorney General of the United States, being called on for his opinion, gave it in favor of including corporations in the same act which should apply to persons; and the sentiment was received with enthusiasm-with vehement applause. Mr. B. said this was cheering-it was encouragement to go Twelve years ago, when himself and a few Senators voted in favor of including banks in the bill then de; ending, their vote found little or no response in the public bosom. Three years ago when he made a speech to the same point, he received nothing but solitary responses, coming from individuals, in different parts of the Union. Now the sentiment finds its response in the bosom of the largest meeting of business men in the first city of the New World; and from this great centre it must go forth to find responses from every quarter of the Union.

on.

Mr. D. then presented the petition, which received the usual reference to the Judiciary Committee.

The CHAIR presented a message from the President of the United States, in reply to a resolution of the Senate of the 17th of February, in relation to the necessity of further legislation in regard to the papers of vessels bound on foreign voyages; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce.

Also, a resolution of the House of Representatives of the Territory of Florida, to procure the pas age of a law to authorize the sale of certain lots in the town of St. Marks, in that Territory; which was referred to the Committee on the Public Lands.

Mr HENDERSON presented resolutions of the Legislature of the State of Mississippi, in favor of the passage of the Independent Treasury bill, and of the bill to graduate the price of the public lands to actual settlers, and approving the policy of the past and present Administrations; which were read, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. WRIGHT presented a petition from citizens of New York, praying for the enactment of a general bankrupt law; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. W. also presented a memorial from citizens of E-sex county, New York, praying a reduction of the rates of postage.

Mr. TAPPAN presented a letter from William D. Jones, asking compensation for extra services performed while consul at Mexico; which, with a resolution of inquiry on the subject, was referred to the Committee on Fo eign Affairs.

Mr. LINN, from the Committee on Private Land Claims, reported a bill for the relief of John Con mpion; which was read, and ordered to a second reading.

Mr. WALL, from the Joint Committee on the Library, made a report on the subject of the Madison Papers, by which it appears that they have teen printed, and are ready for delivery: te report was ordered to be printed.

Mr. HUBBARD, from the Committee on Cizims, to which was referred the petition of Wil. liam McMahon, made an adverse report the on; which was ordered to be printed.

Mr. CLAYTON, from the Committee of the Judietary, to which was referred the memorial of Samuel Lord, made a report thereon, accompanied by a bill for his elef; which was real, and ordered to a second reading.

Mr. YOUNG, from the Committee on Roads and Cana's, to which was referred the memorial of citizens of Ohic, for a road from the valley of the Ohio to the valley of the Columbia river, made an adverse report thereon.

On motion of Mr. TALLMADGE,

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate be, and hereby is, authorized to pay out of the contingent fund of the Senate, any excess of postage ( charged upon packages directed to members of the Senate upon public business.

On motion of Mr. NICHOLAS,

Resolved, That the Committee on the Post Office and Post Road's be instructed to inquire if any and what further legislation may be necessary to insure the prompt and punctual transportation of the mail between Mobile and New Orleans. On motion of Mr. WHITE,

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to report to the Senate what amount of money has accrued, being the 5 per cent. of the nett proceeds of the lands lying within the State of

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
THURSDAY, March 5, 1840.

Mr. CHINN asked leave to offer a resolution, calling upon the Postmaster General for information relating to the irregularities of the mail between New York and New Orleans.

Objection having been made by Mr. CRAIG, Mr. CHINN said the question was one of importance to the whole country; and he moved a sus pension of the rule.

Which motion having been put, the House refused to suspend the rule.

Mr JONES of Virginia asked permission to offer a resolution that the House shall, on to-morrow, go into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, until one o'clock, for the purpose of considering the bill authorizing the issue of five millions of Treasury nos, and that the bill be considered every morning at the sam. hour, un'il finally d spose of.

Mr. GRAVES objected. He thought the better way would be to go on with the regular business on the SPEAKER's able, by which course the SubTreasury bill might probably be reached to-day, and releired.

Mr. J NES assured the gentleman from Kentucky that the Sub-Treasury ill woud be taken up and referred at the earliest practicable moment. He, himself, would shortly a k its reference to the Committee of Ways and Meins, after which, although he would give no pledge as to the time when it wou'd be rsported, yet the gentleman might depend that it would be acted upon with the least possible delay. He repeated that on his part no effort should be wanting to bring it before the House at the earlies practicable moment,

Mr. J. then moved a suspension of the rules to enable him to offer the resolution; which motion was negatived, yeas 103, nays 73, as follows, [not two-thirds]

YEAS-Messrs. Judson Allen, Hugh J. Anderson, Atherton, Banks, Batty, Beirne, Biddle, Boyd, Brewster, A. V. Brown, Albert G. Brown, Burke, Wi liam O Buder, Carr, Carroll, Ca sy, Clifford, Connor, Mark A. Cooper, Craig, Dana, Davee, John Davis, John W. Davis, Duan, Doig. Dromgoole, Earl, Eastman, Ely, Fine, Fietcher, Floyd, Fornance. James Gar land, Gerry, Griffin, Hammond, Hand, John Hastings, Hawkins, Hill of North Carolina, Hillen, Holleman, Holmes, Hook, Hopkins, Howard, Hubbard, Jameson, Joseph Johnson, Cave Johnson, J. W. Jones Keim, Kemble, Leet, Lenard, Lowell, Lucas, McClellan, McCulloh, McKay, Mallory, Marchand, Miller, Montgomery, Samuel W. Morris, Newhard, Nisket, Parish, Parmenter, Paynter, Petrikin, Pickens, Prentiss, Ramsey, Reynolds, Rheut, Rives, Edward Rogers, James Rogers, Shaw, Shepard, Albert Smith, John Smith, Thomas Smith, Stark weather, Steenrod, Strong, Sumter, Swearingen, Sweery, Tay. lor. Philip F. Thomas, Jacob Thompson, Turney, Vanderpoel, David D. Wagener, Watterson, Weller, Jared W. Williams, Henry Williams, and Worthington-103.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, John W. Allen. Andrews, Bell, Bond, Briggs, Brockway, Calhoun, Carter, Chittenden, Clark, Cushing, Edward Davies, Dawson. Debeiry, Dennis, Dillett, Edwards, Evans, Rice Garland, Gates, Gentry, Goggin. Gorde, Graham, Granger, Graves, Green, Grinnell, Hall. William S. Hastings, Hawes, Henry, Hill of Virginia. Hoffman, Hunt, James, Jenifer, Charles Johnston, Kempshall, Lincoln, Mason, Mitchell, Morgan, Calvary Morris, Ogie, Osborne, Pope, Ran,