R

dall, Randolph, Rariden, Rayner, Ridgway, Russell, Simonton, Slade, Truman Smith, Stanly, Storrs, Stuart, Taliaferro, W. Thompson, Tillinghast, Toland, Triplett, Trumbull, Peter J. Wagner, Edward D. White, John White, Thomas W. Wil liams, Lewis Williams, Christopher H. Williams, and Sherrod Williams-73.

The standing committees were then called on for reporis.

Mr. BRIGGS moved that the House do now proceed to the orders of the day.

Mr. CAMPBELL hoped before the House proceeded to the orders of the day, that he might be permitted to make the report from the Committee of Elections, on the New Jersey case.

In answer to a question as to whether the report could not be received at any time,

The SPEAKER responded that the report could only be received when reports should be in order from the Commit ee of Elections.

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

Seseral members suggested to Mr. C. that the better course would be to allow the question first to be taken on the motion of Mr. BRIGGS, as in case the House should refuse to proceed to the orders of the day, the call for reports would be coutinued, so that the report could be made in order.

Mr. CAMPBELL then withdrew his motion to suspend the rules.

The question was then taken on the motion to take the orders of the day, and it was negatived up -yeas 83, nays 104.

Mr. SAMUELS, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported

A bill for the relief of Sarah B. Stith and her children; which was twice read and committed

Also made an unfavorable report on the petition of the representatives of Peyton Randolph, deceased; which was laid on the

table.

Mr. STORRS, from the same committee, reported a bill for the relief of Benjamin Fry; which was read twice, and committed.

Mr. TURNEY, from the same committee, reported

A bill for the relief of Joseph Wallis, and the heirs and legal representatives of Robert Leckie and Jeremiah D. Hayden, deceased;

A bill to refund a fine imposed on the late Matthew Lyon, under the sedition law, to his heirs and legal representatives; which were read twice, and committed.

Mr. CRARY, from the same committee, reported a bill for the relief of William Saunders and William R. Porter, sureties of William Estis; which was read twice, and committed. 22 Mr. CRAIG, from the Committee on Revolutionary Claims, reported a bill to authorize the payment of the seven years' half pay, due on account of the death of Captain William Gregory, to the person or persons entitled to the same; which

5

was read twice, and committed.

Mr. TALIAFERRO, from the same committee, reported a bill to authorize the payment of seven years' half pay of a lieutenant, due on account of the death of Lieutenant Jonathan Dye, who was killed in the battle of Brandywine; which was read twice and committed.

Mr. HALL, from the same committee, reported the following resolution, which was agreed to by the House: Resolved, That the Committee on Revolutionary Claims be instructed to inquire into the character and amount of proof which is required y exis ing laws and regulations to establish claims on the U. States for Revolutionary services in the Virginia continental and Sta'e line and navy; and whether any, and what further legislative provisions be necessary in regard to the mode of adjusting and allowing claims for such services; and that the reports of a select committee on the same subject made at the last session, with the papers accompanying said reports, be referred to the said Committee on Revolutionary Claims.

Mr. ELY made unfavorable reports on the cases of the heirs of Captain Jacob Cohen, the heirs of Captain Leighton Yancey, and the heirs of Richard Epperson; which were laid on the

table.

the table:

Resolved, That, the duties originally assigned to the Com mittee on Public Expenditures, by the rules of the House hav ing since been transferred to other committees,and the said Comittee on Public Expenditures having no duties to perform, the rule for its appointment be abolished.

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

A bill granting a township of land to the Territory of Florida for the establishment of the Dade institute;

A bill for the relief of the owners of bounty land warrants granted for military services in the late war between the United states and Great Britain;

A bill to authorize the Legislature of the State of Tennessee to sell the lands heretofore appropriated for the use of schools in

that State;

which bills were severally read twice, and committed to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. WICK, from the Committee on Private Land Claims, reported

A bill for the relief of the children of Stephen Johnson, deceased;

A bill for the relief of Mary Sroufe;

A bill for the relief of Hyacinth Lassel;

which were severally twice read, and committed.

Mr. HASTINGS, from the same committee, reported

A bill for the relief of Williain Marbury of Louisiana; which was read twice, and committed.

Mr. BUTLER of Kentucky, from the same committee, reported

A bill for the relief of certain settlers on the salt lick reserva. tion, in the Western District of Tennessee;

A bill for the relief of Chilton Allen and others; which were read twice, and committed.

Mr. R. GARLAND, from the same committee, reported

A bill for the r hef of the heirs and legal representatives of Don Carlos De Vilemont; which was read twice, and com. mitted.

Mr. E D. WHITE, from the same committee, made a report on the cases of Pierre Molaison, Pierre Richoux, Francois Martin, Alice Foley, and Alexander Comeon, accompanied by a bill for the relief of Pierre Molaison and others.

Mr. DILLET, from the same committee, reported

A bill confirming the claim of Augustine Lacaste to a certain tract of land therein named; and

A bill for the rehef of Oliver Welch:

which were read twice, and committed.

Mr. D. also reported Senate bill, without amendment, entitled "An act to confirm the title to a certain tract of land in the county of Mobile, in the State of Alabama."

On motion, the Committee on Private Land Claims were discharged from the cases of the representatives of Gregory Sarpey and the representatives of Charles Brown's heirs. And said cases were lail on the table.

On motion, the Committee on Private Land Claims were discharged from the petition of Samuel Myers; and it was laid on the table.

Mr. ADAMS, from the Committee on Manufactures, reported an act to insure the more faithful execution of the laws relating to the collection of duties on imports; which was read twice, and committed.

Mr. BELL, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, reported a resolution, which was agreed to, that the Committee on Indian Affairs, charged with the consideration of a memorial alleging fraud in the negotiation of the treaty made with the Caddo Indians on the 1st July, 1835, have power to send for persons and papers.

Mr. CAVE JOHNSON, from the Committee on Military Af fairs, reported

A bill making an appropriation for surveying the Cumberland road from Vandalia, Illinois, to Jefferson City, Missouri; An act making allowances to paymasters of the army;

A bi lauthorizing the Commissary General of Subsistence to employ to additional clerks in his office;

Also, sundry amendments to the bill to authorize the Presi dent of the United States to raise a force of 1,600 men to serve against the Florida Indians;

A bill to provide for the better protection of the Northwestern frontier;

A bill making appropriations for the establishment of certain fortifications;

which were severally read twice, and committed.

Mr. GOGGIN, from the same committee, made a report upon the memorial of Generad Daniel Parker, accompanied by a bill for his relief; which were ordered to be printed, together with a report made in the same case, at the second session of the Twenty-fifth Congress, and made the order of the day for to

morrow.

Mr. G. also, from the same committee, made a report on the petition of Nathaniel Offutt and others, citizens of the county of Hampshire, in Virginia, asking the release of Valentine Caw gill from service in the army of the United States, adverse to the same: laid on the table, and ordered to be printed."

Mr. KEMBLE, from the same committee reported

A bill to equalize the pay of the army, and for other pur poses: which was read twice, and referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Also, an adverse report in the case of William Strider; which was laid on the table.

Mr. HOLLEMAN, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, reported a bill for the relief of the sureties and heirs and representatives of Melancton M. Bostwich, deceased; which was read twice, and committed.

Mr. GRINNELL, from the same committee, reported a bill authorizing the construction of a dry dock for the naval service in the harbor of New York; which was read twice, and referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. HOWARD, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, reported a bill for the relief of Alexander H. Everett; which was read tiwce, and committed.

Mr. PICKENS, from the same committee. reported a bill to refund certain duties in the case of the French ship Alexandre; which was read twice, and referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Ordered, That the Committee on Foreign Affairs he dig charged from the petitions of citizens in relation to a Congress of Nations for the preservation of the peace of the world; also, from the petitions of Heman Cady and Jonathan Walker.

Mr. CLIFFORD, from the same committee, reported a reso lution, which was agreed to, directing the Committee on Foreign Affairs to inquire what legislation, if any, is necessary to secure to the State of Maine her rights of jurisdiction according to the treaty of 1783, and to protect her in the enjoyment of the same against foreign invasion.

Mr. STUART, from the Committee on Territeries, reported A bill for the relief Jeremiah Smith, jr.; and

A bill to amend the act establishing the Territorial Government of Wisconsin;

which were read twice, and committed.

Mr. RAMSEY, from the same committee, reported a bill concerning the judiciary of Winconsin; which was read twice, and referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. POPE, from the same committee, reported

A bill to authorize the Legislative Council of Iowa to increase the jurisdiction of justices of the peace in said Territory;

A bill to enable the people of Iowa to form a Constitution

and State Government, and for the admission of such State into the Union;

A bill to authorize the people of Middle and West Florida to form a constitution, preparatory to being admitted into the Union as a State; and

A joint resolution disapproving certain laws of the Governor and Legislative Assembly of Wisconsin;

which were severally twice read, and committed.

Mr. E. DAVIS, from the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions, reported

A bill for the relief of Elizabeth Davidson;

A bill for the relief of John H. Genther;

A bill for the relief of the heirs and legal representatives of William Lomax;

A bill for the relief of Jacob Becker;

A bill for the relief of Jabez Collins;

A bill for the relief of Pheebe Dickman,

A bill for the relief of James Phelps;

A bill for the relief of William B. Winston;

which were severally read, and committed.

Mr. D. asked to be discharged from petition of Polly Hale, and that it be referred to the Committee on Revolutionary Claims.

Mr. TALIAFERRO, from the same committee, reported

A bill for the relief of Elizabeth Jones, and others;

A bill for the relief of Thompson Hutchinson;

A bill granting a pension to Catharine Allen;

A bill for the relief of John England;

A bill for the relief of James Dealtey;

A bill for the relief of Hugh Davis;

A bill granting a pension to Chauncey Rice;

A bill to amend and explain the acts passed the fourth day of July, 1836, and on the seventh day of July, 1838, allowing pensions to the widows of deceased officers and soldiers of the Revolution;

which were severally read twice, and committed.

Mr. BROCKWAY, from the same committee, reported
The bill for the relief of William A. Cuddeback;
A bill granting a pension to Eliza Foochee;
The bill for the relief of Elizabeth French;
which were severally read twice, and committed.
Mr. STEENROD, from the same committee, reported
The bill for the relief of Joseph Bailey;

The bill for the relief of George Morris;

A bill for restoring the name of John Latham to the pension roll;

A bill for the relief of Benjamin Mitchell;

A bill granting a pension to Reuben Murray, of the State of Virginia;

A bill for the relief of Wealthy Baker, widow of Isaac Baker, deceased;

A bill granting a pension to James Boylan;

A bill for the reliet of Job Halsey; which were severally read twice, and committed. Mr. HAND, from the same committes, reported

A bill granting a pension to Leonard Smith;

A bill for the relief of Nathan Baldwin;

A bill for the relief of Sarah Oakley;

A bill for the relief of Ichabod Beardsley;

A bill for the relief of Jacob Adams;

which were severally read twice, and committed.

Mr. ANDREWS, from the same committee, reported

A bill granting a pension to Elizabeth Case, widow of James Case, deceased;

A bill for the relief of the administrators and heirs of John Lindsey, deceased;

A bill granting a pension to Thruston Cornell;
A bili granting a pension to Martha Strong;
A bill granting a pension to Benjamin Price;

A bill granting a pension to David W. Sieeth; A bill granting a pension to James J. Coffin; which were severally read twice, and cominiited.

Mr. TAYLOR, from the same committee, reported

A bill for the relief of Conrad Widrig;

A bill restoring the name of John Davis on the pension roll;

A bill for the relief of James Francher;

which were severally read twice, and committed.

Mr. CARR, from the same committee, reported the following bills, which, upon his motion, were read a first and second time by their title, and recommitted to the Committee of the Whole

on the state of the Union:

A bill for the relief of William Andrews;

A bill for the relief of Thomas Bennett; and

A bill for the relief of John Lybrook.
Also, a bill for the relief of Stephen Oiley;

A bill for the relief of John Black;
A bill for the relief of Isaac Austin;
A bill for the relief of Hellen Miller;
A bill for the relief of David Mellon;
A bill for the relief of Henry Bush;
A bill for the relief of Elnathan Sears;
A bill for the relief of William York;
A bill for the relief of Mathew Wiley;
A bill for the relief Philip Hartman;

A bill for the relief of Christian Brougher;
A bill for the relief of Peter Hedrick;
A bill for the relief of Ann Bloomfield;

A bill for the relief of Frastus Pierson;

A bill for the re iet of Izeal Parsons;

A bill for the relief of Michael Seitsinger;

A bill for the relief of Asenath Campbell: and

A bill to increase the pension of William Neal; which bills were severally read twice and committed.

Mr. CARR also, from the same committee, made adverse reports upon the petitions of Mary Reynolds; of Benjamin Webb; of R. Pierce and wife, representatives of Isaac Howard; of William Anglea; of Ward Peck, (he is now in the receipt of 880 annually;) of Mary Richards, (this claim has been admitted at the Pension Office under the act of 7th July, 1838;) of Thomas Baldridge; of George Harmon; of Noah Smith; of John Beck; of Barbara Forbes, (this claim has been admitted at the Pension Department under the act of 7th July, 1838;) of Gabriel Heicks; of Catharine Smith, (allowed at the Pension Department under the act of 7th July, 1833;) of Unice Able; of Benjamin Webber; of Anne Watson; of D. Sterritt; which were ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. TALIAFERRO, from the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions, made unfavorable reports on the petitions of Stephen Freeman, of Elizabeth Rowe, widow of Squire Anibler, of Timothy Shays, and of Samuel Campbell, which were ordered to lie on the table,

240

Mr. T. also made unfavorable reports on the following petitions, and the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions were discharged from their further consideration, viz: Henry Ethel, Joshna Bailey, John Cottrel, Thos. Harvey, Phebe Peck, Mary Pike. Samuel Pettingel, Mrs. J. Smith, Peter Haas, Jacob Miller, Margaret Lawrence, Isac Fowler, Samuel Gray, Calvin Goodno, Ann Knephly, Sarah Callender, Elisha Dillingham, the wi low of Caleb Faxon, John H. Fallen, Elizabeth Rowe, Daniel Woolsey, Sarah Decker, Jacobus Swaitwood, Tunis Swart, Joo. Croft, Charles L. Broid, Azubah Harrington, Gaius Paddock, John Hasey, Lettis Pond, Susan Borden, Mary Hickman, John Boyd, Justice Artman, Jane Burgess, Michael Bock, Eleazer Allen, Joseph B. Brooks, Daniel W. Kenney, Maria Hornbeck, John Brower, Joseph Wood, Win. Meade, Valentine Miller, David Mallory, Ann Goldsbury, the heirs of Benjamin Chappell, Isaac Haviland, John Steigleman, Newcomb Blodget, Amasa Dunbar, Jacob Gist, William Jenkinson, John Whitman, Jeremiah Odell, Henry Peyton, Evan Thomas. Susan Titus, Eliza beth Allen, Timothy Shay, Samuel Campbell, John Reed, Tho. Ramsay, Winney Porter, Benjamin Pierce, John Snow, Wm. Amy, Sophia Delesdernier, Phebe Smith, Catharine Rinker, S. Jordon, Stephen Freeman, David Mason, John Edmondson, Elizabeth Truax, James Reed, Margaret Askins, Peter Catlett, Thomas Hall, Charles Watts, John Magoon, Sarah Parsons, John Atherton, Merifield Vickory, Martha Lamore, Margaret and Mary Daring, Jacob Ford, Richard Raines, Susan Camp. bell, Oliver Peck, Pliny Hays, John Voorhees, Samuel Dean, Susan Rodgers, Polly Hamilton, John II. Schenck, Joseph Parker, Dorcas Colly, and Ensign Mitchell.

Mr. S WILLIAMS, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported

A bill for the relief of Peter A. Myers;

A bill for the relief of John Piper;

A bill for the relief of Job Wood;

A bill for the relief of Mary Hunter;

A bill for the relief of John Keeler;

A bill for the relief of Fielding Pratt;

A bill for the relief of James Fleming;

A bill for the relief of Samuel M Asbury;

A bill for the relief of Neil Shannon;

A bill for the relief of Elijah Blodgett;

A bill for the relief of Thomas Collins;

A bill to restore to certain invalid and other pensioners the

amount of pensions by them relinquished;

which were severally read twice, and committed.

Mr. DOAN, from the same committee, reported

A bill for the relief of Stephen Appleby;

A bill for the relief of Daniel W. Goings;

A bill for the relief of Hiram Saul; and

A bill for the relief of Janies Baily;

which were severally twice read, and committed.

Mr. STRONG, from the same committee, reported

A bill for the relief of Samuel B. Hughes;

A bill for the relief of Thomas Wilson;

A bill for the relief of John E. Wright;

A bill for the relief of James Cummings;

A bill for the relief of William B. Hughes;

A bill for the reliet of John H. Lincoln;

A bill for the relief of Jared Winslow;

Which were severally twice read, and committed.

Mr. S. W. MORRIS, from the same committee, reported
A bill for the relief of Myron Chapin:

A bill for the relief of Barton Hooper;
A bill for the relief of Charles Risley;
A bill for the relief of Gideon Sheldoa;

A bill for the relief of Levi Johnson;

A bill for the relief of Robert Frazier;

A bill for the relief of Lyman Bristol;

A bill for the relief of Isaac Justice;

A bill for th relief of Medad Cook;

which were severally twice read and, committed.

Mr. M. also made unfavorable reports in the cases of Jeremiah A. Winney, Samuel D. Baynard, John Higle, John Deans, Daniel Morse, jr Laban Williams, and Captain John Patton; which were ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. RANDALL, from the same committee, reported
A bill for the relief of Pamela Brown

A bill for the relief of James Smith:

A bill for the relief of Sylvester Tiffany;

A bill for the relief of William Sloan;

A bill or the relief of Robert Whittlet;

A bill for the relief of Joseph W. Knife;

A bill for the relief of Levi M. Roberts;

which were severally read twice, and committed.

Mr. CHITTENDEN, from the same commitee, reported

A bill for the relief of William Butterfield;

A bill for the relief of George Hommill;

A bill for the relief of Jacob Guler;

A bill for the relief of David Wilson;

A bill for the reli fof Smuel Brown;

A bill for the relief of Emanuel Srote;

A bill for the relief of Isaac Boyd;

A bill for he relief of William Bowman;

A bill for the relief of Benjamin McCullock;

A bill for the relief of Lyman Cook;

which were severally read.

Mr. PALEN. froin the same committes, reportel

A bill for the relief of David A. Baldwin;

A bill for the reli fa Levi Collmus;

A bill for the relief of Lieutenant John Allison;

A bill for the relief of William Poole;

A bill for the relief of Josiah Strong;

A bill for the relief of Seneca Rider;

Re

Mr. P. F. THOMAS presonted the petition of James Seaburn, praying that certain tonnage duty paid by him at Wilmington, N. C in 18:5, may be refunded. Referred to the Committee of Ways and Means.

Mr CALHOUN, from the committee appointed on the subjeet, made a report, accompanied by a bill, granting a bounty in land to such soldiers of the old fourth regiment of United States infantry as served during any part of the war with Great Britain. Read, and referred to a Committee of the Whole

House

Mr. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, from the committee to which was referred the bill to provide for the disposal and manage ment of the fund bequeathed by James Smithson to the Unied States for the establishment of an institution for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men, reported an amendatory bill, accomdanied by a report, which were committed to the Cemmittee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. TILLINGHAST, from the Committee on the Library, reported a joint resolution for the disposition of certain documents now deposited in the Library of Congress; which was read.

In the course of the despatch of the above business from the committees, one question arose on discharging the Committee on Indian Affairs from the consideration of certain papers, and referring them to the Committee of Claims, which was debated at considerable length, and finally decided by yeas and nays yeas 77, nays 56.

Mr. BELL having introduced a resolution granting to the Committee on Indian Affairs power to send for persons and papers, with a view to investigate certain alleged frauds in a treaty made with the Caddo Indiaus

Mr. GARLAND of Louisiana said he hoped the resolution reported by the Committee on Indian Affairs would be adopted, and that the committee would proceed with as much diligence as possible to the examination of the charges contained in the petition of Samuel Norris, alleging fraud and misconduct against Jehiel Brooks, the commissioner who negonated the treaty with the Caddo Indians of 1535, by which" Norris alleges he has been injured, and the Government defrauded out of a valuable tract of land.

Mr. G. said, from the delay that had occurred, and from the representations which would probably be made by Brooks, it might appear he had been remis in the discharge of his duty. To counteract any impression of the kind that might be made on any portion of his constituents, he thought it nec ssary to recall the attention of the House to what had taken place, and the facts as they appeared on the journal, or were known to the members.

Mr. G. said he had had the memorial of Mr. Norris in his possession some time before he had an opportunity of presenting it, in consequence of the peculiar condition of the House. He had mentioned some of the facts in relation to this transac tion to a person in this city, who is interested in the land, and told him that, as soon as practicable, it was his (Mr. G's) intention to present the matter to the consideration of the House of Representatives. This conversation, which was a general character, he believed, had been communicated to Brooks, but in what language he did not know

Mr. G. said, that on the 6th of February, as would appear by the journal, he had presented the petition of Mr. Norris, with the evidence in support of it. It was the first day, under the rules, that he could present that petition, or any other. When he presented it, he called the attention of the House, and particularly that of the chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs Mr. BELL] to its contents, which he stated very fully, and requested his immediate attention to it. Some five or six days after, (Mr. G said.) he had received a letter from Jehiel Brooks, stating that he had been waiting for some time to see his (Mr. G's) "indictment" against him. The tone and evident object of the letter was, doubtless, to get up an issue different from the one made by Mr. Norris, and with another person-for what purpose it was not difficult to divine.

Mr. G. said, as it was not his intention to permit any change of the issue presented, or to have the investigation smothered by a personal controversy with Mr. Brooks, he had not answered the letter, but immediately informed a member of the Committee on Indian Affairs of it, and desired that an immediate investigation take place, and that Brooks be notified of it. Some days after, he received another letter from Brooks, rei erating his request, in impertinent language, which Mr. G. said he did not choose to notice, but called on the chairman of the committee, and requested the memorial of Norris might be taken up without delay, and Brooks notified, which was promised. Mr. G. said a delay had occurred in the committee, from the mass of business before it, and the fact that the niemorial was not laid before it by the officers of the House for some week or ten days after it was presented, in consequence of the mass of petitions presented on the 5th and 6th February, all of which had to be entered on the journal, docketed, and dis. tributed.

Mr. G. said that, on the 24th of February, with a view of fa cilitating the investigations of the Committee on Indian Affairs, it would appear from the journal that he had offered a resclu tion calling on the Secretary of War for all the documents, pa pers, and information in the possession of the Department in relation to the negotiation and execution of the Calo treaty, and particularly in relation to the reservations of land in it. The resolution is very comprahensive, and covers the whole ground. It is as follows:

"Resolved. That the Secretary of War he directed to communicate to this House the amount agreed to be paid to the Caddo Indians by the treaty made with them on July 1, 1835, at what times and dates the said sums were paid, to whom paid,

by whom paid, and whether the Indians have received said sums; if so, whether in money or merchandise; and if the lat ter, what was its real value. Also, that he communicate all the correspondence in the Department relating to the payment of said sums, together with all the information in his possession connected with the subject. And the said Secretary is also di rected to communicate, in a separate report, all the documents on file in relation to the negotiation of said treaty with the Caddo Indians, and the reservation therein made, the instructions 10 the commissioners who negotiated the same, and all correspon dence with him or other persons in relation to said treaty, or the reservations therein; the rights of the Indians to the land which was occupied by them; what right or claim the persons in Whose favor the reservations are made have or had to the same; and generally all documents or information in the possession of the Department relating to the rights or claims of the said In dians; the negotiation and execution of the treaty, the rights of individuals who have been affected by it; the objects of the Go. vernment in making said treaty, and any other matter he may think proper connected with these objects."

Mr. G. said it would be recollected he had moved the immediate adoption of the resolution, stating at the time it was very desirable to obtain the information immediately, as it was ne cessary to prosecute the investigation into the alleged frauds in relation to the reservations in the Caddo treaty. An objection was made to the cousideration of the resolution at that time by a gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. CAVE JOHNSON,) and though Mr. G. had earnestly appealed to him to withdraw the objec tion, he had persisted, and the resolution necessarily laid over, under the rules of the House. On the morning of the 26th of February, this resolution was published in the National Intelligencer. On the afternoon of that day, Mr. Brooks, who had been so anxiously waiting for my indictment, set off to Louisiana, leaving a letter to be delivered to me after he was gone, impugning my motives, and threatening me with consequences which he had not the courage to stay here to execute. This let ter (Mr. G. said) was delivered to him whilst in his seat, on the 27th of February, by one of the pages of the House. He inime diately had inquiries made for Brooks, and found he had gone the day previous.

Mr. G. repeated his wish that the resolution should be adopted, and that the committee would take immediate measures to notify Brooks, and proceed to the investigation of the charges which he pretended to court, and of which he might have been informed any day after the 6th of February, by application to the Clerk of the House.

The resolution of Mr. BELL was adopted.

Another brisk discussion took place on a resolution moved by Mr. PICKENS, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for the furnishing that committee with maps, those now in its committee room being antiquated, and in a great degree useless. Mr. PETRIKIN desired that the committee should be restricted to such maps only as were now ia the committee room of the library.

Mr. SUMTER warmly remonstrated against such an idea, and spoke of the vast importance of the matters submitted to the committee, and the necessity of its having all the lights which could be obtained.

Mr. ADAMS wished the committee confined to a definite number of maps; as the CLERK might otherwise make a con tract with Mr. Langtree to furnish all the maps in Arrowsmith's collection, for aught he or the House knew.

Mr. PETRIKIN withdrew his amendment, and the resolu tion was recommitted.

Mr. CLIFFORD, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, intro luced a resolution that so much of the President's message as relates to the Northeastern boundary of the United States be Jeferred to that committee

Mr. GARLAND objected to this resolution as out of order, the whole message having already been referred to the Comn.itted of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. CLIFFORD then proposed, as his individual act, to mo

dify the resolution.

Mc GARLAND objected to this as equally ont of order, be cause the gentleman could not, as a private individual, modify a resolution reported by a committee of the House.

Mr. PICKENS said the only design of resolution was to give the commni tee cognizance of the subject, which it might be inportant for it to have.

Mr. IIUNT objected, but said that if the chairman of the committee would say it was now important, he would withdraw his objection.

Mr. CLIFFORD inquired whether his resolution, as modifled, had been entertained by the CHAIR

The CHAIR replying in the negative

Mr. EVANS appealed; when after some conversation, Mr HUNT withdrew his objection, and Mr. EVANS his appeal, and the resolution, as modified, was agreed to,

The call of committees for reports having proceeded as far as the Committee on Revisal and Unfinished businessMr. HOFFMAN moved an adjournment, but it did not prevail

The call of committees was now resumed, and when it had proceeded as far as the Committee on the Expenditures in the Department of War

Mr R. GARLAND, chairman of that committee, moved that the committee have power to send for persons and papers to e able it to inquire into the legality of those expenditures; t gether with an amendment proposing that the committee have power to employ a clerk at 64 per day during the sitting of the

committee.

Mr. PETRIKIN demanded the previous question on the re

solution and amendment.

The call was seconded by the House, and the previous ques tion was thereupon put and carried.

And the main question being first on the amendment, it was negatived-yeas 73, nays 99.

So the House refused to allow the committee a clerk The question was then put on the adoption of the resolution, and decided in the affirmative-yeas 109, nays 53. The CHAIR announced that reports from the Committee of Elections would be in order.

NEW JERSEY ELECTION. Mr. CAMPBELL, from the Committee of Elections, to which was referred the resolution of the House of the 28th ult. directing said committee to report fortwith to the House, which five of the ten

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

BY BLAIR & RIVES.

Continued from No. 15.

candidates for seats as Representatives from the State of New Jersey had received the greatest number of lawful votes at the late election in that State, made a detailed report thereon, concluding with stating that Messrs. DICKERSON, VROOM, KILLE, RYALL, and COOPER, had received the greatest number of lawful votes.

REPORT

ON THE NEW JERSEY CONTESTED ELECTION. In compliance with the resolution adopted by the House of Representatives, on the 28th ultimo, instructing the Committee of Elections to "report forthwith which five of the ten individuals claiming seats from the State of New Jersey, received the greatest number of lawful votes from the whole State for Representatives in the Congress of the United States at the election of 138, in said State, with all the evidence of that fact in their possession: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to prevent or delay the action of said committee in taking testimony or deciding the said case upon the merits of the election." The committee submit the the following

REPORT:

While the committee, from the commencement of its labors in this important case, have been actuated by the most anxious desire to do justice to the individual claimants, to the ancient and honorable State for whose service they are maintaining an animated contest, and to the whole American people, who have a deep and abiding interest in preserving the purity of elections; and while for securing so valuable a result, the committee had marked ont a course somewhat different from that which seems now to be prescribed by the House, they cheerfully yie'd to its authority; and so far as they can ascertain its intention, they have no other inclination than to give it ample and speedy effect.

The committee, however, have encountered no inconsiderable difficulty in harmonizing all the terms of the resolution with that intention. which, from the circumstances of the case, as well as from the more prominent clauses of the resolution itself, they must understand to have governed the action of the House. To give every word in the resolution the full force of a literal interpetration, would be, perhaps, to raise such a conflict between the parts as to disable the whole. But instead of separating it into paris, the whole resolution should be so construed as to give expression to a distinct intention, which is capable of being ascertained and effectualed. As a portion of the House, the members of the committee are not ignorant of the importance that was attached to the insertion of the word "lawful," before the word "voles," in the resolution. Nor can they overlook the fact that connected with the proposition to insert, was the motion to strike out another word, utterly inconsistent with that broad and searching investigation which the insertion of the word "lawful" (without reference to other expressions in the resolution, or to the posture of the case it-el) would seem to demand.

The House had referred to the committee the whole subject-matter of the controversy, and with it a mass of testimony having no application to any inquiry, short of the merits of the election. The commitee had, as was well known to the House, entered upon this inquiry, and had adopted such measures for the procurement of testimony as would probably probe to the core all frauds and ilegalities. In the prosecution of this investigation a delay had occurred, the deplorable effects of which were as manifest to the committee as to the House.

When the proposition to instruct was originally introduced as an amendment to the application with which the committee had come before the House, its intent was clear that a report should be immediately made of the names of those who had received the greatest number of votes at the last Congressional election in New Jersey. If any thing more was wanting to explain the meaning of

TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1840.

-WEEKLY.

this proposition, it is to be found in the proviso which was added, and which clearly indicated that the action which the House was moved to demand, did not contemplate an interference with the course adopted by the committee for the "taking of testimony, and deciding the case upon the merits of the eleclion."

Under these circumstances, if the proposition to strike out the word "forthwith," and insert the word "lawful," had fully succeeded, there would still have remained that prominent clause of proviso; and it might well have been understood, that, notwithstanding the omission of the word "forthwith," the House desired an immediate report; and that, notwithstanding the insertion of the word "lawful," the House contemplated that the report should be independent of testimony, now under the process of being obtained, for the purpose of deciding the election upon its merits.

Upon what basis, then, could such a report be constructed? Manifestly not upon the partial, inconclusive, and incompetent testimony as to the legality of votes now in the possession of the committee. The House cannot have contemplated a report, involving an investigation of the ballet boxes, without allowing time or opportunity for that investigation to be thorough.

At the same time, the committee cannot entirely overlook the word "lawful," or strike that from the resolution which was inserted upon a contest so close as to require a casting vote for is decision. Did this word stand disconnected with, or unqualified by, the various considera ions already alluded to, no doubt could be entertained as to its effect. It would lead to a thorough and final purgation of the rolls, and would delay a report to that period, to which it was well known to the House that the committee had postponed a decision upon the question of ultimate right.

There is but one other basis left, and that is the prima facie case upon the returns of the local officers of the several polls; and the nature of the controversy taken into consideration, it can scarcely be doubted that to this basis the resolution looked.

If this conclusion might reasonably have been reached, in the event of the complete and coeval success of the motions to strike out and insert, how much more easily is it attained when the resolution is found armed with the pungent word "forthwith," quickening the action of the committee, and declaring opposition to the long delay which had been found inseparable from a thorough investigation into the legality of the votes.

If, therefore, the word "lawful," surrounded as it is by every thir g which negatives the idea of a mere adherence to the original course of the committee, can be made to harmonize with the context of the resolution, and the circumstances under which it was adopted, by every sound rule of construction, that end should rather be attained by limiting the meaning of that word, than by bending the reason and language of all the rest (if that were possible) to its strongest and amplest signification.

The committee are therefore of opinion that they correctly construe that word with the context, when they limit its signification to that prima facie lawfulness of votes which arises upon their reception at polls held in conformity with law; and in thus limiting its signification, they feel themselves sustained by the general language and spirit of the resolut on, and by the situation of the case itself.

The committee are confirmed in this construction, and the course consequent thereon, by the consideration that any judgment looking beyond the face of the polls, which they might base upon the

inconclusive testimony in their possession, would be unsatisfactory to the House, unjust to the parties, and calculated to produce erroneous conclusions in relation to a mass of facts which appear to be verified by the oaths of voters, but which, either because of the extra judicial administration of the oaths, or the wast of due notice to the opposite parties, have been rejected as not sufficiently proven. It is proper, however, to state

VOLUME 8.........No. 16.

PRICE $1 PER SESSION.

that, should all the votes proved to be illegal by competent testimony, be deducted from those who received the greatest number at the polls, which appear to have been held in conformity with law, the result would not affect the right of any candidate to a seat.

With this explanation, which they have considered due to the House and to themselves, the committee will now proceed to examine the allegations against the validity of certain township elections, as far as such an examination can be made upon the testimony in their possession.

Upon this branch of the case, the claimants holding the Governor's commissions, claim

1st. That, apart from their not being received in time to be counted according to law, the votes of Millville should be set aside for the fraudulent and illegal conduct of the officers of election, in proclaiming their intention to receive the votes of aliens, and in receiving a large number of such knowingly, and in violation of the laws of the State.

Without inquiring into the effect of these charges, if they were substantiated by competent and satisfactory testimony, it is sufficient to state that they are unsupported by any testimony in the possession of the committee.

2d. They allege that, apart from all defects and irregularities in the return, the votes of South Amboy should be set aside, because one of the officers of election duly chosen, was unlawfully prevented from acting, and another substituted in his place, who acted and signed the list, &c.; and because the board, thus unlawfully constituted, received a large number of alien votes contrary to law.

In support of these allegations, numerous depositions have been produced, but without expressing an opinion, whether, if satisfactorily proved, they would constitute sufficient evidence of fraud to set aside the votes of this township; it is only neC:ssary to state that the evidence was taken ex parte, without sufficient notice, and has been rejected by the committee as incompetent to be considered in this case.

3d. It is further claimed, that the poll held at Saddle River, in Bergen county, should be set aside: Because at least eight voles given for them were fraudulently abstracted from the ballot box, and as many for their opponents fraudulently substituted: Because in making cut the list of voles in said township, at least eight voles less than were given for them were counted in their favor, and at least as many were counted for their opponents, more than they received: and because the list of votes in said township bears upon ils face evidence of mistake or fraud.

In support of these charges, the depositions of numerous voters have been submitted; but, being taken ex parte, and without sufficient notice, they have been rejected by the committee, as incompetent testimony.

It is also claimed that the polls held at the townships of Newton, Harderton, and Vernon, in Sussex county, should be set aside, for reasons that will more fully appear by reference to the document marked A, accompanying this report. But there is no competent evidence before the committee in support of these allegations.

Having thus disposed, for the present, of the var'ous objections to the validity of the elections held at the several townships claimed to be set aside, the committee will now proceed to ascertain "which five of the ten claimants received the greatest number of lawful votes" at the late Congressional election in New Jersey, according to the several returns purporting upon their face to be made by officers duly authorized to act.

The committee take as the basis of their calculation, the statement upon which the Governor and Privy Council of New Jersey made their decision, and which is found in the minutes of the proceedings of the Governor and Privy Council.

From this statement, it appears that the total of votes for each of the ten claimants was as fullows:

For Philemon Dickerson Peter D. Vroom

27,951

27,990

the CHAIR: nobody can move an adjournment while I have a right to the floor.

Mr. PROFFIT. I made a motion to adjourn, and wish to know whether the gentleman from Ohio, by his appeal to sustain the motion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, can deprive me of the right to have the question taken on my motion.

The SPEAKER said the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. PROFFIT] had a right to move an adjournment.

Mr. PROFFIT renewed his motion to adjourn. Mr. DROMGOOLE called for the yeas and nays; which being ordered, the question was de cided in the negative that way-yeas 71, nays 90.

Mr. DUNCAN'S appeal was then read.

Some conversation then took place as to the phraseology of the appeal in which the SPEAKER, Mr. FILLMORE, and Mr. DUNCAN, participated, Mr. FILLMORE stating that the point was not correctly stated, and that when he offered his resolution the reading of the report was suspended by general consent, and that it was so understood by the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. DROMGOOLE,] who endeavored to offer a resolution at the same time.

The SPEAKER thought the facts were not exactly stated as they happened. His impressions were that the reading of the report was suspended by general consent, and that the resolution of the gentleman from New York was received in the same way. The CHAIR, he said, was often placed in difficulty by propositions to receive motions by general consent. Some gentlemen would make objections and then withdraw them, and from the confusion often produced on such occasions, the CHAIR was often led, unintentionally, into error, particularly when the proposition is permitted to be read for information only.

Mr. MEDILL was satisfied that the SPEAKER was in error in saying that the gentleman from New York had moved his resolution before the reading of the report was called for. The CLERK was reading the report when he was interrupted by the gentleman from New York, and he [the CLERK] stopped, as a matter of course, when the gentleman interrupted him, and he rose, and, addressing the SPEAKER, offered his resolution. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. DROMGOOLE] rose nearly at the same time, and offered a resolution, but the CHAIR awarded the floor to the gentleman from New York. He then, as he supposed both gentlemen to be out of order, rose, and demanded if he had not a right to have the reading of the report proceeded

with.

Mr. DROMGOOLE said, that when he discovered that the reading of the report was sus pended, he supposed that it was done by general

Until

consent; and therefore it was that he endeavore to offer his resolution. If the reading of the eport was not suspended by general consent, as he learnt from the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. MEDILL,] it was clear that the gentleman from New York was out of order, when he offered his resolution. he heard the explanation of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. MEDILL,] he was under the impression that the reading was suspended by general consent. There was so much confusion in the hall at the time, that he, as well as the SPEAKER, might have been led into error.,

Mr. PETRIKIN insisted on his right to the floor, and said it was of no consequence whether the gentleman from New York was out of order or not, when he offered h's resolution, as he [Mr. P.] made his motion immediately on the conclusion of the reading of the report, and the SPEAKER then recognised his right to the floor.

Mr. WHITE of Kentucky called for the reading of the documents accompanying the report.

Mr. CRAIG'S idea was that the whole matter was out of order. If the reading of the report was called for, as they were told by the gentleman from Ohio and others, the gentleman from New York had no right to offer his resolution while it was being read. He, himself, rose out of order, and wished to get the unanimous consent of the House for printing the report, and an adjournment. It was rather an appeal to the good sense of the

House, than a regular motion to the CHAIR. He knew he was out of order, and when he found it was the wish of the House to proceed with the business, he too his seat.

[Much disorder prevailed at this time, a number of gentlemen trying to get the floor, and addressing the CHAIR.]

The SPEAKER said he would make a short statement of the facts, so far as he understood them. The CHAIR supposed, when he received the motion of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. FILLMORE,] that the reading of the report was suspended by general consent. He would, however, state it was always a difficult matter for the CHAIR to decide when motions were received by general consent, or only suffered to be read for information, as much confusion generally attends such propositions, and gentlemen who make objections often withdraw them. In this case, the CHAIR believed that the reading was su-pended by general consent; but it seemed that, in this, he was mistaken, for the Senator from Ohio states that he called for the reading of the report. There was a difficulty which had occurred to the CHAIR Since his decision, and this was whether the member from New York [Mr. FILLMORE] did not lose his right to the floor by not claiming it until after the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. PETRIKIN] had risen and been recognised by the CHAIR. This question would, however, be decided by the question on the appeal taken by the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. DUNCAN] As there was some difficulty as to the phraseology of the appeal, the CHAIR would, with the assent of the gentleman from Ohio, state the question on the appeal as simply appealing from his decision, giving the floor to the gentleman from New Vork.

Mr. DUNCAN assented.

After some remarks from Mr. BRIGGS, not heard,

The SPEAKER stated the question on the ap peal.

Mr. CHAPMAN would ask of the House if any one could understand the true state of the case better than the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. MEDILL,] who was a member of the committee, had made himself fully acquainted with the subject, and was near to the gentleman of New York and to the CHAIR when the two motions on which the appeal rested were made.

Mr. CHAPMAN was called to crder, and took his seat.

Mr. FILLMORE demanded the yeas and nays on the appeal, which were ordered.

Mr. PROFFIT said he rose to a point of order. Several gentlemen. There is a point of order now pending.

The previous question on the appeal was then seconded by the House, and the main question having been put, resulted-yeas 82, nays 88.

hayo the decision of the CHAIR not being sustained,

the effect was to award the floor to

Mr. PETRIKIN, who withdrew his motion for the previous question, and asked of the CHAIR what was the question before the House.

The SPEAKER said it was on the motion to recommit, made by the gentleman from New York, Mr. FILLMORE.

After a desultory discussion on the question of order as to the question before the House, in which Messrs. TAYLOR of Ohio, FILLMORE, and PETRIKIN, took part,

The CHAIR again stated the question before the House; when

Mr. PETRIKIN submitted the following substitute for Mr. FILLMORE's resolution, by way of amendment, and moved the previous question on it.

Whereas it appears by the report of the Committee of Elections that Philemon Dickerson, Peter D. Vroom, Daniel B, Ryall, William R. Cooper, and Joseph Kille, received the greatest number of lawful votes cast in the State of New Jersey at the election holden in that State for Representatives in the Twenty-sixth Congress:

Resolved, That Philemon Dickerson, Peter D. Vroom, Daniel B. Ryall, William Cooper, and Joseph Kile, are entitled to take their seats in the House of Representatives as members of the Twenty-sixth Congress, and that the Speaker of the House, on their presenting themselves, qualify

them as such: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall prevent the investigation into said election from being continued in the manner heretofore authorized by a majority of the Committee of Elections, on the application of the five claimants for said seats.

Mr. FILLMORE enquired whether the amendment was in order.

The CHAIR said it was read for information Mr. PETRIKIN said he would advise the gentleman from New York never to fire until he was loaded. The well meaning part of the country was tired of hearing of the continued debates on this New Jersey question. He was tired of hearing gentlemen on the other side continually complaining that poor New Jersey was unrepresented on that floor. Enough had been said of broad seals, prima facie evidence, &c.; and as the committee had now reported which five of the ten contending candidates had been duly elected by the people, he wanted the matter settled at once, and the right members put in their seats. It was with this view that he had offered his resolution.

Mr. FILLMORE said his point of order was this: The gentleman's amendment, by s'riking out all after the word "whereas," did not leave a substantive portion of the resolution. Again: his resolution was to recommit the report, while the amendment offered a different and distinct proposition to admit five members to their seats.

The CHAIR informed the gentleman from New Yark that, the previous question being called, it was not in order to debate.

Mr. FILLMORE said as he was not permitted to say any thing in its favor, he would withdraw his point of order.

Mr. CONNOR then moved a call of the House; but, from the confusion and noise prevailing, the motion was not entertained.

Mr. PROFFIT said he had called fifty times, as he could prove, for the reading of the papers accompanying the report. I call for it now, said he; but in this scene of revolution and Jacobinism, no man has his rights.

The SPEAKER said the gentleman had a right to call for the reading of papers, about which he was called on to vote.

Mr. HOPKINS here moved that the House adjourn; and the yeas and nays being called for and ordered, the question was decided in the negative→ yeas 75, nays 92.

Mr. PRENTISS of New York moved a call of the House.

Mr. WELLER called for the yeas and nays; which were ordered.

Mr. HOWARD moved an adjournment... Mr. PROFFIT called for the yeas and nays, which were ordered; and the question was in that way decided in the affirmative-yeas 85, nays 72. So the House adjourned.

IN SENATE, FRIDAY, March 6, 1840. The CHAIR submitted a report of the Secretary of the Navy, made in compliance with a resolution of the Senate of January 29, 1840, transmitting a list of officers admitted to the roll of navy pensioners between the 30th of June, 1800, and the 1st of January, 1837, and specifying their rank, the degree and nature of disability, and the amount of monthly pension; which was laid on the table.

Mr. GRUNDY presented the memorial of Edmund P. Gaines, proposing a system of national defence, and recommending the same to the adoption of Congress; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. BUCHANAN presented fifteen memorials, praying for an increase of duties on imported silks; which were referred to the Committee on Finance. Mr. B. also presented the memorial of the Chamber of Commerce of the city of Philadelphia, praying the passage of a bankrupt law; which was referred to the Commi tee on Finance.

Mr. CLAYTON presented the petition of Olivia W. Cannon, widow of Joseph S. Cannon, deceased, late an officer in the Navy of the United States, which was referred to the Committee on Pensions. Mr. PIERCE presented the petition of the wi