dow of Robert Willey, deceased, late a soldier in the Revolutionary war, praying a pension; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions.

The CHAIR submitted resolutions passed by the Senate of the Territory of Florida, instructing the Delegate of said Territory in Congress to oppose the passage of any law for dividing said Territory; which was referred to the Select Committee on the Florida Territory.

Mr. MERRICK presented the petition of a number of citizens of Alexandria, praying the erection of a marine hospital at or near that place; which was referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

Mr. PORTER presented the petition of citizens of Kalamazoo and St. Joseph, in the State of Michigan, praying that the provisions of the preemption law of June 22, 1838, may be extended to persons engaged in the cultivation of the soil at the time of its passage, with a view to a future settlement thereon; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

Mr. PIERCE, from the Committee on Pensions, to which was referred the petition of Tyler Spafford, reported a bill for his relief: which was read, and ordered to a second reading.

Mr. MERRICK, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, to which was referred the memorial of Casper W. Wever, reported a bill for his relief; which was read, and ordered to a second reading.

Mr. PIERCE, from the Committee on Pensions, to which was referred the claim of Mary Neal, reported a bill for her relief; which was read, and ordered to a second reading.

Mr. KING, from the Committee on Commerce, to which was referred the petition of Jacob Pennel, reported a bill for the relief of Jacob Pennell, and others, owners of the Eliza, of Brunswick; which was read, and ordered to a second reading.

Mr. WALL, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported a bill for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States; which was read, and ordered to a second reading.

The Senate proceeded to the consideration of the following resolution submitted some days since by Mr. TAPPAN:

Resolved, That the 47th rule be amended so as in the last paragraph thereof to read:

"Two reporters for each of the daily papers, and one reporter for each tri-weekly paper, printed and published in the city of Washington, whose names shall be communicated in writing, by the editors ot those papers to the Secretary of the Senate, and who shall confine themselves to the seats now provided for them.

After some remarks from Mr. PRESTON, he moved to lay the resolution on the table; which was negatived-ayes 17, noes 25.

Mr. PRESTON then moved to amend by strik. ing out "city of Washington," and inserting "District of Columbia," which was disagreed to-ayes 16, noes 25.

The resolution was then agreed to-ayes 25, noes 16.

THE SPECIAL ORDER.

The report of the Select Committee on the as. sumption of State debts, was then taken up, and after an animated debate, in which Messrs. DAVIS, BUCHANAN, PRESTON, KING, NORVELL, CLAY, of Kentucky, BROWN, and CALHOUN, participated,

Mr. WEBSTER moved an adjournment; which was decided in the negative.

The question then coming up on the resolutions reported by the Select Committee,

The CHAIR stated the question as follows:
The Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. BUCHA-
NAN, had moved to amend the resolutions of the
committee, by adding the following:

Resolved, That the debts of the several States, so far as they are known to the Senate, have been contracted in the exercise of the undoubted right and constitutional power of said States respectively, and that there is no ground to warrant any doubt of the ability or disposition of those States to fulfil their contracts.

For which amendment, Mr. NORVELL offered the following as a substitute:

Resolved, That while the Senate of the United States is fully impressed with the importance and correctness of the principles contained in the foregoing resolutions, it is not intended thereby to create any doubt of the constitutional right of the States to contract debts, nor of their resources, disposition, or ability to fulfil the engagements which they have contracted for purposes of internal improvement, as we las for other objects within the range of their rese. ved powers.

The question wa now on the substitute of Mr. NORVELL; which was agreed to-ayes 25, noes 18, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Allen, Anderson, Benton, Brown, Calhoun, Clay of Alabama, Cuthbert, Fulton, Grundy, King, Linn, Lumpkin, Mou on, Nicholas, Norvell, Roane, Robinson, Sevier, Strange, Sturgeon, Tappan, Wall, Williams, and Wright-25.

NAYS Messrs. Buchanan, Clay of Kentucky, Crittenden, Davis, Dixon, Henderson, Knight, Merrick, Phelps, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Ruggles, Smith of Indiana, Southard, Spence, Webster, and White-18.

The question then being on the adoption of Mr. BUCHANAN'S motion as amended, after some remarks by Mes rs. SMITH of Indiana CRITTENDEN, NORVELL, WEBSTER, and KING,

On motion of Mr. KING, and by unanimous consent, it was considered as withdrawn for the present.

The substitute proposed by Mr. CRITTENDEN for the resolutions of the committee, was then taken up, and was as follows:

Resolved, That the debts of the several States, so far as they are known to the Senate, have been contracted in the exercise of the undoubted right and constitutional power of said States respectively, and that there is no ground to warrant any doubt of the ability or disposition of those States to fulfil their contracts.

Resolved, That it would be just and proper to distribute the proceeds of the sales of the public lands among the several Sa es, in fair and rateable proportions, and that the condition of such of the States as have contracted debts is such at the present moment of pressure and difficulty as to render such distribution especially expedient and important.

After some remarks by Mr. PRESTON, the question on the subs'itute was taken, and it was rejected-ayes 17, noes 28, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Betts, Clay of Kentucky, Crittenden, Davis, Dixon, Knight, Merrick, Phelps, Porter, Prentiss, Ruggles, Smith of Indiana, Southard, Spence, Tallmadge, Webster, and White

-17.

NAYS-Messrs. Allen, Anderson, Benton, Brown, Calhoun, Clay of Alabama, Cuthbert, Fulton, Grundy, Henderson, Hubbard, King, Linn, Lumpkin, Mouton, Nicholas, Norvell, Pierce, Preston, Roane, Robinson, Sevier, Strange, Sturgeon, Tappan, Wall, Williams, and Wright-28.

Mr. PRESTON then moved to amend the resolutions of the committee by striking out all after the word resolved, and inserting the following as a substitute:

Resolved, That the debts of the several States, so far as they are known to the Senate, have been contracted in the exercise of the undoubted right and constitutional power of said States respectively, and that there is no ground to warrant any doubt of the ability or disposition of those States to fulfil their contracts.

After some remarks by Messrs. WEBSTER and KING,

Mr. NORVELL said that the amendment offered by him, and voted on by the Senate, had been withdrawn, with the general understanding that no other amendment should be offered until a vote was taken on the resolutions of the committee. The course taken by the Senator from South Carolina would compel him to move the proposition which he had withdrawn, as a substitute for the Senator's amendment; and he accordingly made that motion.

Mr. PRESTON then withdrew his motion to amend.

The first resolution of the Select Committee was then read, as follows:

1. Resolved, That the assumption, directly or indirectly, by the General Government, of the debis which have been, or may be, contracted by the States for local objects or State purposes, would be unjust, both to the States and to the people.

Mr. PRENTISS moved to strike out the words "directly or indirectly," and insert "or gua

rantee."

After some remarks by Messrs. PRENTISS, KNIGHT, and GRUNDY,

Mr. WEBSTER moved an adjournment, which was negatived--ayes 10, noes 27.

The question was then taken on the amendment proposed by Mr. PRENTISS, and decided in the negative-yeas 6, nays 27, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Betts, Dixon, Knight, Phelps, Prentiss, and Ruggles-6.

NAYS-Messrs. Allen, Anderson, Benton, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay of Alabama, Cuthbert, Fulton, Grundy, Hubbard, King, Linn, Lumpkin, Mouton, Nicholas, Norvell, Pierce, Roane, Robinson, Sevier, Smith of Indiana, Strange, Sturgeon, Tappan, Wall, Williams, and Wright-27.

Mr. RUGGLES then moved to amend by striking out "or State purposes." Mr. R. assigned as a reason, that the debt recently incurred by the State of Maine, in defending her froutier, might be considered a State debt, and, by this resolution, the future payment of it debarred.

Mr. WILLIAMS said, as his colleague had objected to this resolution, and as he intended to vote for it, he wished to give a reason for so doing. He considered the debt incurred by his State, in defending the frontier, as not the debt of Maine, but as the debt of the United States, which would, he expected, be paid without hesitation by the General Government.

Mr. BENTON. Certainly. The boundary of Maine was the boundary of the United States. [In this sentiment there was a very general acquiescence.]

After some further remarks by Messrs. RUGGLES and WALL,

Mr. NORVELL said that the defence of the State of Maine was the defence of the United States. The protection of the Northeastern boundary of Maine was the protection of the boundary of the nation. The expenses incurred in that defence and protection were national expenses; and he would tell the Senator from Maine [Mr. RUGGLES] that, if he came here to claim reimbursement of the moneys expended in the maintenance of her boundary rights against a foreign power, on the ground of its being a local object or a State purpose, he would, in his judgment, go home without success. The worthy colleague of the Senator [Mr. WILLIAMS] had taken the right view of the subject. The resolution against the assumption of the State debts contracted for local objects and State purposes, had no reference to such cases as the defence of a State against foreign aggression.

Mr RUGGLES demanded the yeas and nays on his amendment, but they were not ordered, and it was negatived without a division.

The question was then taken on the first resolution, and it was agreed to-ayes 30, nay 1, as fol

lows:

YEAS-Messrs. Allen, Andrson, Benton, Brown, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay of Alabama, Cuthbert, Dixon, Fulton, Grundy, Henderson, Hubbard, King, Linn, Lumpkin, Mouton, Nicholas, Norvell, Pierce, Prentiss, Roane, Robinson, Sevier, Strange, Sturgeon, Tappan, Wall, Williams, and Wright

-30.

NAY-Mr. Smith of Indiana-1.

The second resolution was then read as follows: 2. Resolved, That such assumption would be highly inexpedient, and dangerous to the Union of

the States.

After some remarks from Mr. DIXON, it was agreed to-ayes 28, noes 3, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Allen, Ben'on, Brown, Bu chanan, Calhoun, Clay of Alabama, Cuthbert, Fulton, Grundy, Hubbard, King, Linn, Lumpkin, Mouton, Nicholas, Norvell, Pierce, Prentiss, Roane, Robinson, Sevier, Strange, Sturgeon, Tappan, Wall, Williams, and Wright-28.

處

pe

NAYS-Messrs. Dixon, Smith of Indiana, and White-3.

The third resolution was then read as follows: 3. Resolved, That such assumption would be wholly unauthorized by, and in violation of, the Constitution of the United States, and utterly repugnant to all the objects and purposes for which PRES the Federal Union was formed.

And it was agreed to-ayes 29, noes 3, as folBlows:

YEAS-Messrs. Allen, Anderson, Benton, A Brown, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay of Alabama, Cuthbert, Fulton, Grundy, Henderson, Hubbard, King, Linn, Lumpkin, Mouten, Nicholas, Norvell, Pierce, Prentiss, Roane, Robinson, Sevier, Strange, Sturgeon, Tappan, Wall, Williams, and Wright— Bera 29.

NAYS-Messrs. Dixon, Smith of Indiana, and LE White-3.

The fourth resolution was then read as follows: 4. Resolved, That to set apart the public lands, or the revenues arising therefrom, for the beforementioned purposes, would be equally unjust, inexpedient, and unconstitutional.

Mr. BENTON moved to amend by striking out all after the word Resolved, and insert, "That the CAL assumption of such debts, either openly, by a direct

promise to pay them, or disguisedly, by giving security for their payment, or by creating surplus revenue, or by applying the national funds to pay them, would be a gross and flagrant violation of 21. the Constitution, and wholly unwarranted by the Max letter or spirit of that instrument;" which was agreed Pto, without a division.

Mr. NORVELL then moved to amend, by adding the following:

5. Resolved, That while the Senate of the United States is fully impressed with the importance and correctness of the principles contained in the foregoing resolutions, it is not intended thereby to create any doubt of the constitutional right of the States to contract debts, nor of their resources, disposition, or ability to fulfil the engagements which

be they have contracted for purposes of internal improvement, as well as for other subjects within the range of their reserved powers.

Which was agreed to-yeas 23, nays 7, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Allen, Anderson, Benton, Brown, Buchanan, Clay of Alabama, Cuthbert, Fulton, Grundy, Henderson, King, Linn, Lumpakin, Mouton, Nicholas, Norvell, Roane, Robinson, Sevier, Sturgeon, Wall, Williams, and Wright— 23.

NAYS-Messrs. Calhoun, Hubbard, Pierce, Smith of Indiana, Strange, Tappan, and White-7. Mr. BETTS then offered the following as an 1 amendment

Resolved, That the distribution of the public lands, or the revenues arising therefrom, among the several Siates would he equally unjust, unconstitutional, and inexpedient.

Mr. WRIGHT asked for the yeas and nays on this amendment. He wished to see if the Senator from Connecticut would vote for his own proposition; or if, at this late hour of the evening, propositions are made which the Senators offering them will not vote for themselves.

Mr. BETTS said he would not vote for it, but his object was to get a direct vote of the Senate on the proposition.

After some remarks from Mr. CLAY of Alabama, on the impropriety and irregularity of offering a proposition identical with one which had just been

acted on,

Mr. KING said, if the CHAIR decided the moiod to be in order, an appeal could be taken from the decision of the CHAIR, and it would then te time enough to debate the motion.

The CHAIR decided the motinn to be out of order.

Mr. PRENTISS then moved to further amend the resolution by inserting the following:

"But nothing contained in the foregoing resolutions is to be understood as denying or questioning the right or power of Congress to make an equal distribution of the proceeds of the public lands, among all the States, according to the terms and conditions of the deeds of cession,"

The amendment was disagreed to-ayes 6, nays 25, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Betts, Dixon, Prentiss, Robinson, Smith of Indiana, and White-6. NAYS-Messrs. Alien, Anderson, Benton, Brown, Calhoun, Clay of Alabama, Cuthbert, Fulton, Grundy, Henderson, Hubbard, King, Linn, Lumpkin, Mouton, Nicholas, Norvell, Pierce, Roane, Sevier, Strange, Sturgeon, Tappan, Wall, and Wright-25.

So the resolutions were agreed to, as follows: 1. Resolved, That the assumption, directly or indirectly, by the General Government, of the debts which have been, er may be, contracted by the States for local objects or State purposes, would be unjust, both to the States and to the people.

2. Resolved, That such assumption would be highly inexpedient, and dangerous to the Union of the States.

3. Resolved, That such assumption would be wholly unauthorized by, and in violation of, the Constitution of the United States, and utterly repugnant to all the objects and purposes for which the Federal Union was formed.

4. Resolved, That the assumption of such debts, either openly, by a direct promise to pay them, or disguisedly, by giving security for their payment, or by creating surplus revenue, or by applying the national funds to pay them, would be a gross and flagrant violation of the Constitution, and wholly unwarranted by the letter or spirit of that instru

ment.

5. Resolved, That while the Senate of the United States is fully impressed with the importance and correctness of the principles contained in the foregoing resolutions, it is not intended thereby to create any doubt of the constitutional right of the States to contract debts, nor of their resources, disposition, or ability to fulfil the engagements which they have contracted for purposes of internal improvement, as well as for other subjects within the range of their reserved powers.

On motion, the Senate, at 8 o'clock, adjourned until Monday next.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
FRIDAY, March 6, 1840.

Mr. GATES, by general consent, made a statement in relation to the following portion of Mr. BYNUM's speech, as published in the Globe of last evening:

From the Le Roy Gazette.

"Very much like, indeed! The editor of the Ohio paper abandoned the Whigs because they nominated the Abolitionists, and joined the Loco Focos because they went for the dough-faces, while we left the Jackson party because it adhered to slavery, and united with the Whigs, because they supported Abolition!" "This paper was then edited by Mr. GATES, now a member on this floor."

The substance of the statement of Mr. G. was, that although he was once the editor of the Le Roy Gazette, he did not edit the paper when the above article was published, but was a member on this floor. The paper was then, and at present, edited by Cyrus Thompson, jun.

Mr. BYNUM said there could be no doubt but that a mistake had been made, as until this morning he was not aware that the gentleman from New York had resigned the editorship of that paper.

The House then resumed the consideration of the report made last evening by Mr. CAMPBELL, from the Committee of Elections, on the N. Jersey case.

Mr. PETRIKIN modified his resolution, by adding "in the manner heretofore authorized, and by a majority of the Committee of Elections."

Mr. CAMPBELL appealed to the gentleman from Pennsylvania to withdraw his motion for the previous question, in order to allow an opportunity for the minerity of the committee to make a report, so that the subject might take the usual course, the testimony be printed, and the subject postponed to a day certain.”

Mr. PETRIKIN refused to withdraw his motion.

Mr. BRIGGS asked leave to submit the following resolution:

Whereas this House did, by a resolution passed

on the 13th day of January last, refer the case of the New Jersey contested elestion, with all the papers relating thereto, to the Ccommittee of Elections, with instructions to inquire who were entitled to occupy the five seats as Representatives from the State of New Jersey; and whereas said committee did proceed in said inquiry, until the parties contesting for said seats, by permission and under the authority of said committee, left the city, and proceeded to the State of New Jersey, for the purpose of taking testimony in relation to their respective title to occupy seats upon the floor of this Housethe time allowed by the committee for that purpose being until the 2d Monday of April next; and whereas by another resolution passed on the 28th February last, this House instructed said committee forthwith to report which five of the persons claiming to be elected members from the State of New Jersey received the greatest number of lawful vo es of the people of said State; and whereas said committee did, on the 5th day of March instant, report that PHILEMON DICKERSON, PETER D. VROOM, JOSEPH KILLE, WILLIAM R. COOPER, and DANIEL B. RYALD, received the greatest number of lawful votes, without having first examined the evidence as to the legality of votes alleged to be illegal, or as to the legality of certain polls alleged to be illegal, without notifying er hearing the parties; and whereas, a resolution is now pending declaring that PHILEMON DICKERSON, PETER D. VROOM, JoSEPH KILLE, WILLIAM P. COOPER, and DANIEL B. RYALL, ale entitled to take seats as members of the Twenty-sixth Congress for the State of New Jersey, now, to the end that justice may be done, and that this House will not proceed to decide so grave a question as that of the right of a State to a representation on this floor, in the absence of, and without hearing, the parties interested,

Resolved, That it is the right as well of the persons claiming seats, as of the people whom they claim to represent, to be present, and heard before their title to seats shall be passed upon by this House.

Resolved, That the whole subject of said election be postponed until the second Monday of April next, and that the report and all the papers relating there to be printed, and that the Speaker be directed to notify the parties claiming seats, that they may, if they see fit, be present on said day, and be heard in the premises at the bar of this House.

Objection being made, Mr. BRIGGS moved a suspension of the rules for the purpose. On this motion the yeas and nays were ordered, and resulted-yeas 95, nays 112.

So the rules were not suspended.

The CHAIR ordered the documents accompanying the report os the Committee of Elections to be read.

Mr. CAMPBELL said he had appealed to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. PETRIKIN] to withdraw his motion for the previous question, but in vain. He now, thorefore, moved to lay the resolution of Mr. FILLMORE, with the amendment moved by Mr. PETRIKIN, on the table.

The CHAIR reminded Mr. CAMPBELL that that motion, if it prevailed, would carry the report itself

to the table.

Mr. CAMPBELL thereupon withdrew his motion.

The reading of the papers commenced, and having proceeded some time

Mr. EVERETT withdrew his call for the reading, and it was suspended.

Mr. RIVES inquired whether it would be in or der to move to suspend the further consideration of the report of the committee till Tuesday next, and to make it the special order for that day at 12 o'clock, and so to continue every day at that hour, till the subject should be disposed of?

The CHAIR replied it could only be done by universal consent.

Objection was made.

Mr. SMITH of Connecticut inquired whether the previous question had been withdrawn? The CHAIR replied in the negative. Mr. RIVES modified his motion so as to make the report the special order at 1 o'clock. Objection being made

Mr. RIVES moved to suspend the rules,

Mr. BELL rose to order, and insisted that the amendment of Mr. PETRIKIN was out of order, as it had no relation to Mr. FILLMORE's resolution, to which it had been moved.

The SPEAKER replied that, on examination, he had himself come to the same conclusion; but as action had since been had, it was now too late to raise the question of order.

Mr. BELL contended that, as no decision had yet been had on the resolution or amendment, it was not too late for the CHAIR to revise its decision. Mr. TURNEY opposed that view, and referred to the previous practice of the House.

At this point, the morning hour having expired, Mr. MONROE called for the orders of the day. Mr. BELL said he should not appeal.

Mr. LEWIS WILLIAMS still insisted that it was not too late:

The question was now put on Mr. RIVES's motion to suspend the rules, but it failed-yeas 110, nays 94: (not two-thirds.)

[On the name of Mr. EVERETT being called, he inquired whether the previous question was withdrawn? The SPEAKER informed him it was not. Mr. E. said, then I answer, no.]

The residue of the day (it being now 2 o'clock) was taken up in the discussion of a point of order.

The SPEAKER, by general consent, had presented to the House a certain paper, understood to be testimony relating to the contested election in New Jersey, and which had boen referred, on motion, to the Committee of Elections.

This having been done in the manner in which communications on the Speaker's table are usually disposed of, by a formal motion, indeed, but without general attention having been called to the import of the paper; and the Speaker being in the act of passing to other business,

Mr. FILLMORE rose and called for the reading of the document, at the same time submitting a motion that it be printed.

Mr. PETRIKIN objected.

The SPEAKER said the paper had already been referred, and the motion of the gentleman was not in order, except by general consent.

Mr. EVERETT suggested to Mr. FILLMORE that he could attain his object by moving a reconsideration.

Mr. FILLMORE thereupon moved to reconsider the vote by which the paper had been referred. [This is a motion which, under the rule, takes precedence of all other questions, except a motion to adjourn.]

Mr. F. then proceeded to say. I snppose I am not at liberty to say any thing of what took place in the committee; but I take it for granted that I may, by way of argument, speak, by supposition, of any thing else. I will suppose that there was a committee in the British House of Commons on the subject of an election

Mr. PETRIKIN rose and inquired if the gentleman was in order in proceeding to debate his motion at this time?

The SPEAKER said the motion to reconsider took precedence over all other motions.

Mr. PETIKIN. But not the consideration of the motion.

The SPEAKER said that the motion and the consideration of the motion could not be separated.

Mr. PETRIKIN then submitted the point of order, that the SPEAKER having announced the orders of the day, (which were private bills,) a motion to reconsider could not be debated and considered, save by a vote of two thirds.

The SPEAKER having ruled to the contrary, and that the motion to reconsider was now before the House for consideration

Mr. PETRIKIN appealed from the decision of the CHAIR.

Mr. FILLMORE required that the gentleman's point of order be reduced to writing, that it might be entered on the journals. He had been often enough put down, he said, by a mere numerical force, in every thing which related to this New Jersey election. Gentlemen on the other side would hear nothing, see nothing, but would decide.

The SPEAKER called on Mr. PETRIKIN to reduce his point of order to writing; which was done.

Much conversation ensued, and statements were made by several gentlemen as to the state of the facts, as set forth in Mr. P's written point of oider.

When a motion was made by Mr. HOLLEMAN to lay the appeal on the table. Mr. RANDOLPH asked the yeas and nays; which were ordered.

Much rapid and desultory conversation followed.

Mr. FILLMORE inquired of the Chair whether the motion to lay the appeal on the table, if it should prevail, would carry with it the motion to reconsider?

The SPEAKER said that, in his opinion, it

would.

Mr. FILLMORE said then the SFEAKER Would do indirectly that which he could not do directly. A gentleman entitled to the floor might thus be cut off in the midst of his remarks by a mere incidental point of order, having no connection with the main subject of debate.

The SPEAKER said a motion to lay on the table was not debatable.

Mr. FILLMORE appealed from the decision of the CHAIR, that the motion to lay the appeal on the table, if it prevailed, carried with it the motion to reconsider.

If such a construction of the rule was to be recognised, (Mr. F. said,) every man here would hold his right to the floor at the will of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr PETRIKIN] Mr. DAWSON said that, for the first time in his life, he rose to a point of order.

The SPEAKER said he could entertain no more questions of order till these pending were decided.

The appeal of Mr. FILLMORE was then debated briefly by Messrs. LEADBETTER, GRAVES, ALFORD, BRIGGS, and BANKS.

After which Mr. BANKS moved to lay it upon

the table.

Mr. PETRIKIN demanded the yeas and nays, which were ordered.

And the SPEAKER having stated the grounds of his decision

The question was then taken on the motion to lay on the table the second appeal, to wit, the appeal of Mr. FILLMORE from the decision of the Chair, that the motion to lay the first appeal on the table, if it should prevail, would carry with it the motion to reconsider.

And it was decided in the affirmative: Yeas 98, nays 76.

So the second appeal was laid on the table. [Under the decision of the Chair, as given above, this vote would have taken with it the previous ap. real, and the motion to reconsider. But]

Mr. FILLMORE rose and asked if he had a right to proceed in his remarks?

The SPEAKER said the gentleman had not the right.

Mr. FILLMORE then said he must, with all respect for the CHAIR, take an appeal, which, at the request of the CHAIR, was reduced to writing as follows:

"Mr. FILLMORE had the the floor, and was speaking on a motion to reconsider a vote of the House. He was called to order. The SPEAKER decided he was in order; from this decision an appeal was taken. A motion was then made to lay that appeal on the table. On this a question was raised, whether the motion to lay on the table was in order? The SPEAKER decided it was, and on this an appeal was taken. A motion was made to lay this appeal on the table; which was put and carried.

"The SPEAKER then decided that the original motion to reconsider is laid on the table, and that Mr. FILLMORE is deprived of his right to proceed in the debate.

"From this decision IMr. FILLMORE appeals, in. sisting that the original judgment of the CHAIR stands, as it is not reversed, and that he is entitled to the floor, on the original motion to reconsider."

The appeal was debated at length by Mr. BARNARD, (who suggested to Mr. FILLMORE a modification of the form of his appeal,) and by Messrs. POPE and PETRIKIN.

When Mr. PETRIK IN moved the previous

question; but at the request of the SEAKER, who said that he had found a decision which seemed to go against the one which he had given, withdrew the motion.

The appeal was further debated by Messrs. CLIFFORD, BRIGGS, and HOLLEMAN.

The SPEAKER then gave the floor to Mr. ANDREWS of Kentucky, who yielded it, however, to enable the SPEAKER to make a statement.

The SPEAKER then cited a case which had occurred to the Congress of 1834, [the particulars of which the Reporter could distinctly hear,] in which the then SPEAKER had decided that an appeal was a separate and independent question. There was also, the SPEAKER said, a decision of his own, at the present session, by which it had been decided that the appeal was an independent question. This certainly was opposed to his own views; bu', finding such a decision, and finding that such had been the previous decisions, he felt bound to conform to them, and must decide that the question now before the House was on the appeal of the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

This appeal (see above) was taken from a decision of the CHAIR that the motion to reconsi'er could be debated and considered now, without a vote of two-thirds.

And the immediately pending question thereon was the motion submitted by Mr. HOLLEMAN that the appeal do lie on the table.

Mr. TURNEY now moved that the House ad. journ.

Mr. TOLAND urged the gentleman to withdraw his motion, to enable him to offer a resolution. Mr. TURNEY declining,

The question was taken and carriel;
And the House adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SATURDAY, March 7, 1840.

After the journal had been read,

Mr. DUNCAN inquired whether the report of Committee of Elections on the New Jersey election, with the resolution of Mr. PETRIKIN, was not the grst business in order.

The SPEAKER responded that, in his opinion, the first business in order was the appeal of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, in relation to papers referred to the Committee of Eelections yesterday. On motion of Mr. TOLAND, it was Resolved, That the use of this hall be allowed for an exhibition of .he pupils of the Pennsylvania Institution for the education of the Blind, under the direction of Dr. Thomas Rhoads, Principal of the Institution, on Monday morning next, from 10 to 12 o'clock.

Mr. MONTGOMERY gave notice, in writing, that he would offer the following amendment to the 126th rule of the House: "Strike out all from the word' therefor,' in said rule, to the end thereof." The rule now stands as follows:

"No standing rule or order of this House shall be rescinded or changed without a day's notice being given of the motion therefor; nor shall any rule be suspended, except by a vote of at least two thirds of the members present. Nor shall the order of business, as established by the rules of the House, be postponed or changed, except by a vote of at least two-ih rds of the members present." Should the rule be amended, it will read as fol lows:

"No standing rule or order of the House shall be rescinded or changed without one day's notice being given of the motion therefor."

This amendment is intended to give a majority of the people's representatives on this floor, at all times, the power to proceed to the transaction of the important public business of the country, and to expunge from our ru'es (as I believe) that most unjust and tyrannical rule which begins, "Two-thirds of the people's representatives to transact the most important public business of this nation, except at particular times and under particular circumstances."

The SPEAKER then announced the business before the House to be the appeal of the gentle. man from Pennsylvania, [Mr, PETRIKIN,] from a decision of the CHAIR on yesterday, "that the mo

tion to reconsider could be debated and considered now without a vote of two-thirds."

The question pending was on the motion of Mr. HOLLEMAN to lay the appeal on the table.

Mr. HOLLEMAN, being entitled to the floor, said that, with a view of saving time, he would withdraw the motion to lay on the table, so that the 14 question could at once be taken on the appeal. He then moved the previous question on the appeal, which, being seconded, the main question on the appeal was taken, and resulted in the decision of the CHAIR being sustained-yeas 88, nays 86.

Mr. DUNCAN here rose to a question of order. He contended that the first business before the House was the report of the Commitee of Elections on the New Jersey case, with the resolution of Mr. PETRIKIN, on which the previous question had been ordered. In his opinion, nothing could intervene or prevent the immediate action of the House on that previous question. He urged that the whole business, out of which the appeal had arisen, was out of order.

Mr. D. at the request of the CHAIR, reduced his point of order to writing.

"It is ont of order to intercept the previous question by the introduction of any question, discussion, or reading of evidence.

The

"This House, by resolution, required the Committee of Elections to report forthwith, who of the ten contesting members from New Jersey had received a majority of the lawful votes at the Congressional election of 1838. The committee did report in conformity with the resolution. leport was in favor of Mr. DICKERSON and his associates. The report was read: a resolution was offered to recomm t, and for other purposes. A resolution was offered, by way of amendment, the object of which was to authorize Mr. DICKERSON and his associates to take their seats; and on that resolution the previous question was moved. It is out of order to entertain any proposition, which will intercept the immediate action of the House upon the previous question now pending. Such is is the character of the measure now before the House, which I contend is out of order."

The SPEAKER decided that the motion of Mr. FILLMORE to reconsider the vote by which certain papers relating to the New Jersey contested election had been referred to the Committee of Elections, took precedence over the report of that committee Curing the morning hour.

From which decision Mr. DUNCAN appealed; and he noved the previous question.

Mr. BRIGGS and Mr. TRIPLETT several'y submitted to the CHAIR that this identical point of order had been already decided, and that it was not in order to raise the same question gain.

The SPEAKER said he was of opinion that the question was the same as that just decided; but other gentlemen might difler, and time might be saved by putting the question.

And, after some conversation, the question was put, and the demand for the previous question (ayes 97, noes 78) was seconded.

And the main question (to wit, "Shall the decision of the CHAIR stand as the judgment of the House ?") was ordered to

be now taken.

Mr. TURNEY called for the yeas and nays, which were, or dered; and, being taken, were-yeas 99, nays 89.

So the House affirmed the decision of the CHAIR. And the question thus recurring on the motion of Mr. FILL MORE to reconsider the vote by which the said papers had been referred to the Committee of Elections

Mr. FILLMORE proceeded to address the House (hypothetically) in relation to the proceedings of the committee.

He entered into the general merits of the contested election and made some severe strictures on the report of the committee, the majority of which he censured for refusing to consider certain depositions in relation to the votes of South Amboy, and of suppressing them by the force of numerical strength. The substance of his remarks is embodied in the following preamble to his resolution of last week.

Mr. FILLMORE, after speaking some time, called for the reading of the testimony which had been referred to the Committee, and which it would be the effect of his motion, should it prevail, to bring back and place under the control of the

House.

Mr. STEENROD objected.

Mr. FILLMORE said he had never read the papers in ques-
tion, and did not know what they contained.
Mr. MEDILL inquired whether it would be proper to ask
Mr. F. how those papers were obtained.

Mr. CHAPMAN opposed the reading as out of order.
Mr. PETRIKIN also objected, and spoke to the question of

order.

The CHAIR ruled the reading to be in order, and, in support of that decision, read the rule applying to the case.

Mr. CHAPMAN now said that he was satisfied the reading was in order, and he withdrew his objection to it.

The reading of the testimony having proceeded for some

time

Mr. HAND objected to its continuance, and raised a question of order, but the objection was overruled.

And the CLERK continued to read until the papers had been read through.

Mr. FILLMORE then resumed, and continued to address the

House for a considerable time longer, when he gave way for Mr. W. THOMPSON to move an adjournment.

The yeas and nays being ordered, Mr. T. withdrew his motion, but it was immediately renewed by Mr. STANLY, but the yeas and nays being taken, it was negatived-yeas 75, nays 85.

So the House refused to adjourn.

Mr. FILLMORE once more proceeded with his speech. Mr. CAMPBELL, chairman of the Committee of Elections, interposed to explain, and said he had no objection to all the testimony in the case being immediately printed.

Mr. FILLMORE resumed the floor, and spoke without further interruption till he had concluded his argument.

Mr. MEDILL of Ohio, (a member of the committee,) then took the floor in reply. He said he did not rise so much with the view of answering the arguments of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. FILLMORE,] in relation to the merits of the report, as to repel the attack which he has thought proper to make upon a part of the committee. The report is not now under consideration Whenever it shall be, I am prepared, said Mr. M. to show that the facts are correctly set forth, and that the conclusion at which it arrives is sustained by testimony of the most unquestionable character. It is not claimed that the report is based on a complete purgation of the ballot boxes throughout the State. This appears to have been an afterthought of the gentlemen who first claimed seats under the Governor's "seal," and has been resorted to for the purpose of concealing from public observation one of the most extraordinary frauds that has ever been attempted on the suffrages of the people. It is founded, as it professes to be, on the votes received at the polls in pursuance of the laws of that State, by the sworn officers, whose duty it was to conduct the elections. These officers are the only judges of the qualifications of an elector that are known to the laws of New Jersey. They act under the solemnities of an oath, and it is made a penal offence knowingly to receive a vote from any one not possessing the qualifications of an elector as prescribed by the Constitution and laws of the State. It is further set forth that depositions had been submitted to the committee, with the view of showing that votes had been received at the polls, from persons who were not entitled to the right of suffrage, and that one of the officers of election at South Amboy was unlawfuly prevented from acting, and another substituted in his place. But if all the votes proved thus to be illegal by competent testimony, were taken from those who received a majority at the polls, the result in relation to any one of the claimants would not be affected. With what propriety, then, said Mr. M. does the gentleman denounce the face report as carrying on its tional lie? On what grounds is the assertion made? Is not the basis on which it proceeds candidly and fairly set forth? Are not the statements made in pursuauce thereof strictly correct, and the conclusion at which it arrives, justly inferable? Does the gentleman desire to be understood as answering negatively to any one of these interrogato. ries? Then let him call for the reading of the testimony, and direct the attention of the House to that part by which he seeks to sustain his assertion. Sir, said Mr. M. I apprehend that the gentleman's imagination has taken the start of his judgment. When he spoke of a paper bearing on its face the evidence of a "national lie," I cannot but think that a certain certificate, verified by the "great seal" of New Jersey, was passing through his mind." That a knowledge of the fact of the Chief Magistrate of a great State certifying to an untruth, under the emblem of its sovereignty, should excite his indignation, and continue to haunt his thoughts, whether on this floor or in the private walks of life, is by no means surprising. The whole proceedings, with the testimony on both sides, are about to be submitted to the public-a tribunal that never fails to do justice, however tardy in its judgment. The report itself is the prosecution of a member of the committee who voted through. out in favor of admitting the certificate members, and whose opinions were not likely to have been biased by any partiality for others.

a na

But, said Mr. M. the gentleman has seen proper to attack the majority of the committee; and by supposing a course of conduct which he desires the Ilouse to consider as having taken place in the committee 100m, has charged them with acts of the grossest injustice. The reasons urged in favor of setting aside the election at South Amboy were, that one of the officers of the election was unlawfully prevented from acting, and another person substituted in his place, and that certain aliens had been permitted to vote. In n aking up his figured issue, the gentleman has charged the majority of the committee with re using to consider the depositions that were taken to establish th se facts, and seeking to suppress them by the force of numerical strength. Sir, said Mr. M. I am not one of those who will permit a sertions of this kind to go forth, where I am personally concerned, although they be hypothetical, without accompanying them with a stamp by which they will be recognised and appreciated, wherever they go. The gentleman was not even satisfied with giving them a durability co-existent with his speech, but has embodied them in a preamble and resolutions, and placed them on the journal of the House. Sir, I ask if these charges are founded in truth? Was no part of the depositions taken by the certificate claimants in relation to the election at South Amboy, read and considered in committee? Nay, further: Were not all the depositions relating to that inquiry, and which were in the possession of the committee when the report was directed to be drawn, read and acted on? And although a part of them were rejected as incompetent by the committee, with but one dissenting voice, have they not all been submitted with the report, for the consideration of the House? With what propriety, then, and on what grounds, does the gentleman assert that these depositions were excluded from the consideration of the committee, when his own name will appcar recorded on the ques tion? It may be that they were made with the view of breaking the force of the report, and still keeping the public in doubt respecting the true nature of this infamous transaction.

But, sir, said Mr. M. there are other depositions alleged to have been taken by the certificate claimants in relation to the same subject, and which were referred to the committee since their report was submitted to the House. Although directed to you, and only laid before the House and referred this morning, Ithink I recognise in them acquaintances of two or three days' standing. On Tuesday last, the chairman assembled the committee, and laid before them the report which he had prepared, in pursuance of the principles previously agreed, with the view, as is understood, of presenting it to the House that morning.

[Here Mr. SMITH interrupted Mr. MEDILL, and required that

he observe the rule of order, that forbids any reference to the proceedings of the committee.]

Then, continued Mr. M. I will follow the example that has been set me by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. FILLMORE,] and suppose a case, iutending to be understood, howevel, as asserting what has actually taken place. For this purpose I will raise a select committee, and direct its attention, for a few minutes, to the case now in hand. Suppose, then, that the committee had been sitting about five weeks, and had examined all the testimony submitted to its consideration by the respective claimants-that the cer tificate gentlemen finding the "great seal" was beginning to melt before the burning influence of the poll books, asked further to experiment on the good people of New Jersey, and try if they could discover a sufficient number of illegal votes throughout the State to counterbalance the Democratic majorities in the townships that were suppressed. Suppose, in pur suance of this request, that the committee, by a bare majority, had postponed the further consideration of the case, and autho rized the taking of additional testimony, until the second Monday of April next, in the manner and upon notice prescribed by the laws of New Jersey, reserving to itself, however, the right of reporting to the House the facts as they then appeared before the committee. That, on the 28th ult. this House passed a resolution instructing the committee forthwith to report which five of the claimants received the greatest number of lawful votes from the whole State, with all the evideuce of that fact in their possession-that they assembled on the next morning, agreed on the basis and principles of a report, and directed the chairman to prepare it accordingly. Suppose that, on the 3d instant, the committee were called together, the report submitted, and found in all things to correspond with the data on which it was pre. viously directed to be made-that at this time a member of the committee drew from his pocket a package, under a sealed envelope, directed to the Speaker of the House of Representa. tives, and purporting to be depositions in relation to the New Jersey election, and desired that they might be opened by the chairman, read, and considered, before the report should be submitted to the House These depositions were said to refer to the manner of holding the election at South Amboy, although nothing of the kind was endorsed on the envelope. This gentleman, whose pocket, instead of the Speaker's desk or chairman's port folio, was made the depository of these depositions, appeared to understand their contents, and professed to have received a letter from one of the claimants whose pretensions they were designed to sustain, explanatory of their import. Such (said Mr. M.) was the time, and such the circumstances under which these depositions appeared before the committee. It is true that it was subsequently proposed to send them to the Speaker of the House, to the end that they might be opened and immediately returned to the committee; and it is true that this proposition was also rejected. Here, then, is the only paper relating to the case, according to my recollection, that was not considered by the committee before the report was presented to the House.

But the language (said Mr. M.) which the gentleman from New York [Mr. FILLMORE] has used towards the majority of the committee, will warrant a further examination into the circumstances, under which these depositions first made their appearance. Let us for a moment advert to the facts in the

case.

The consideration of the subject on the ultimate right of the claimants had been postponed until the second Monday of April. They were engaged in taking testimony, with a view to a final adjudication at that period. The committee had not precluded themselves from making a preliminary report, should it be deemed advisable to do so, but the parties had a right to expect that it would be on the evidence examined, when they were personally present. A resolution passed the House on the 28th ultimo, calling for such a report. It was prepared and submitted by the chairman on the 3d instant. Sufficient time had intervened for a letter to reach South Amboy, where depositions were being taken, and a package to be transmitted from thence to this city. The depositions appear. I ask (said Mr. M.) if there were no grounds for him to suspect that all was not right? The order of the committee, as well as the laws of New Jer. sey, required that they should be certified, scaled up, and either handed or transmitted, by the officer before whom they were taken, to the SPEAKER of the House of Representatives.

How came they in the pocket of a member of the committee? They were sealed up, but was it done by the officer before whom they were taken, the party whose claims they were intended to sustain, or some one in ti is city? There was nothing on the envelope by which these facts could be satisfactorily ascertained. They were directed to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, but by whose hand? The gentleman, under whose polite attentions they were introduced into the committee room, asserted that they related to the manner of conducting the election at South Amboy: but did they contain all the test)mony that was taken on that subject; or did they only embrace the evidence on one side? Were they procured and transmitted to this city without the knowledge of the opposing claimants, and whilst they were actually engaged in examining the rebutting witnesses?

These are inquiries which the gentleman's accompanying letter may have answered very satisfactorily, to his mind; but which, in my opinion, rendered the testimony wholly unworthy of consideration either in the committee or this House. Sir, said Mr. M. I have seen enough of this case to awaken my suspicion, to excite my watchfulness, and to induce me to insist on the observance of those rules that preclude the possibility of fraud. No one, it appears to me, who has examined the subject, and whose mind is unbiased by the party prejudices of the day, can view the course pursued by the county clerks, the Governor and his ten Councilmen, in any other light than as a most daring attempt to control the sovereign will in the selection of public officers. If these depositions were actually forwarded to this city by one of the parties, without the knowledge of the other, and before the examination of witnesses at that place, and in relation to the saine subject, had closed, as there was but too much reason to suspect, is there a member on this floor who would seek to make the foundation of a report on a matter of so much interest to the people of this country? And I am assured, on the authority of a letter received in this city, and which now lies before me, that such was the case. The House will, therefore, see whether any evidence was surpressed, and on what foundation the gentleman's assertions rest. The gentleman, said Mr. M. has also insinuated that the majority had assembled after the adoption of the report, and reconsidered a vote, in the absence of three mernbers, that had been taken in full committee, This, like his other charges, is without any just

or real foundation in fact. The committee, at the meeting alJuded to, was equally as full as when the original vote was ta. ken. It two of the members saw proper to step out of the room after the question was put, and a third declined votingthat third being the gentleman himself-it is no fault of the majority. Their absence was voluntary and intentional, and the charge itself unworthy of so respectable a source. Having already addressed the House at length, said Mr. M. I will not follow the gentleman in discussing the merits of the case. I rose to repel the unjust aspersions which he attempted to cast on a majority of the committee, and to expose to this House and the country, the desperate shifts that were being resorted to for the purpose of sustaining the Governor and Privy Coun cil of New Jersey, in their attempted invasion on the rights and liberties of the people of that patriotic State.

Mr. TURNEY, after some preliminary remarks, moved the previous question on Mr. FILLMORE's motion to reconsider. Mr. FILLMORE moved a call of the House.

Mr. SMITH of Connecticut, (another member of the com. mittee,) rose to explain, in reply to Mr. MEDILL, but, amidst loud cries of order, resumed his seat.

The previous question was now seconded.

Mr. FILLMORE renewed his motion for a call of the House; and on this motion Mr. SMITH of Connecticut demanded the yeas and nays: which being ordered

Mr. GRAVES moved to adjourn.

On this motion Mr. Mr. TURNRY demanded the yeas and nays, which, being taken, resulted as follows-yeas 79, nays 98. So the House refused to adjourn.

The question then recurring on a call of the House, it was decided by yeas and nays in the negative-yeas 61, nays 100. So the House refused to order a call of the House.

The previous question was now put and carried.

And the main question being on Mr. FILLMORE motion to reconsider

It was decided in the negative, as follows-yeas 78, nays 96. So the House refused to reconsider the order by which certain additional testimony in the New Jersey case had been referred to the Committee of Elections.

Mr. FILLMORE said it had been suggested to him by seve ral of his friends that the member from Ohio had imputed improper conduct to him before the committee, and had thrown out the idea that he (Mr. F.) was the individual who presented the sealed testimony. Now, all he wished was for the member from Ohio to state whether he intended to be so understood or not.

Mr. MEDILL said that when he had previously addressed the House, he was prevented from giving a full statement of the circumstances precisely as they occurred, owing to his being arrested by the member from Connecticut, [Mr. SMITH,] and compelled, under the resolution of the House, to speak of them as supposed cases. He would now, however, state that the facts in the supposed case existed precisely as he had stated them. A member of the committee produced, from his own pocket, a sealed envelope, purporting to contain testimony in relation to the New Jersey election, and directed to the Speaker of the House of Representatives. That member, on producing it, demanded that the papers it contained should be read. This was before the committee submitted their report to the House, but after it had been prepared. In speaking of the member, however, he did not say it was the gentleman from New York, [Mr. FILLMORE, nor did he wish to be understood as alluding to him. It was the member from Connecticut, [Mr. SMITH,] the same gentleman who called him to order for referring to what took place before the committee. But he was of opinion that the gentleman from New York had joined in desiring that the papers should be opened and read.

The SPEAKER, in reply to a question from a member, here stated, that the papers in question were delivered to him by Mr. CAMPBELL, the chairman of the committee; they were en closed in a sealed envelope, and were directed to him as SPEAKER. That was the first time he ever saw them.

Mr. TURNEY said he would like to know from the chairman of the committee how and in what way he came in posses ion of them.

[Here a scene of great confusion arose, many members at tempting to speak at once, and which rendered it impossible for the Reporter to hear with distinctness.]

Mr. SMITH of Connecticut having with some difficulty obtained the floor, said that he had not called the gentleman from Ohio to order for alluding to any thing personal to him as a member of the commitee, but on the ground that, under the resolution of the House, it was out of order to refer to the proceedings of the commitee. With respect to the suggestion that some member of the committee had held very improper communication with one of the parties, (claimants,) he knew very well that the gentleman alluded to him. He knew that he was the person alluded to, because it was himself who delivered the testimony to the chairman of the committee, and the gentleman, if so disposed, might make as much of that fact as he pleased.

On this admission, there was some laughter from various parts of the hall.

Mr. S. said that if gentlemen supposed what he had said im. plied any conscious guilt, they were much mistaken; but if they chose to laugh, they could do as they pleased.

Mr. 8. then went on to remark, what he considered a singu lar circumstance. He said that while the gentleman from Ohio had been denouncing the alleged improper communication with one of the parties, he had acknowledged that he himself had The denunciation was been holding such a communication. When the gentleman rises and throws impuall on one side. tations on others, he, at the same time, tells the House that he has letters from one of the parties, informing him of what was going on.

Mr. S. went on to state, the depositions in question were sent to this city, under cover, to the Hon. Mr. OSBORNE, and under the envelope there was a letter directed to him, Mr. S. and which any member might read.

cluded by complaining that the previous question had been moved before time had been given him to make the above explanation.

Mr. MEDILI said, that, so far as the gentleman's explanation had represented him as acknowledging when up, that he himself had been holding a communication with the parties,' or either of them, it was wholly untrue. He had made no such admission or acknowledgment. What he had said was, that he had been shown a letter received by an individual in this city, and which then lay before him, confirming the suspicions that he had previously expressed in relation to the imperfect na ture of the testimony in question, and the injustice that might have resulted from its consideration. These suspicions were freely expressed in the committee room, and in presence of the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. SMITH] himself. He was taken by no surprise on this floor, he very properly acknow. ledges. He (Mr. M.) had held no communication with either of the parties, nor would he consent to consider any testimony not received through the ordinary channels prescribed by law and the rules of this House, unless the party whose rights were affected, had first an opportunity of being heard. He had never intended to refer to the matter on this floor, but had been driven to it by the unjustifiable attack of the gentlemen from New York, (Mr. FILLMORE.]

Mr. CAMPBELL asked leave to introduce a resolution that the journal of the committee and all the papers in its posses sion, in relation to the New Jersey contested election, be printed for the use of the House. What had passed to day in the House rendered, he thought, such a measure proper, and al

most necessary.

Objections being made by Mr. RICE GARLAND, and several others,

Mr. CAMPBELL moved to suspend the rules to enable him to make such a motion.

[The noise was very great, and the CHAIR arrested the proceedings until order could be in some degree restored.]

Mr. FILLMORE expressed his desire that such an order should be passed.

Mr. CRABB explained on the subject of the introduction of the bundle of papers into the committee.

A member objected to Mr. CAMPBELL'S motion being received, as the floor had been yielded to Mr. PETRIKIN only for explanation.

The CHAIR decided the motion of Mr. CAMPBELL to be out of order, and declared the subject before the House to be the consideration of the report of the Committee of Elections, made on the 5th instant, on the New Jersey election.

The questions pending being Mr. FIL MORE's proposition to

recommit

Mr. PETRIKIN's motion to amend Mr. FILLMORE's proposi tion-

And the question immediately pending being the demand heretofore made by Mr. PETRIKIN for the previous questionMr. CAVE JOHNSON moved to adjourn.

Mr. CAMPBELL claimed the floor to explain. [Confusion and loud cries of order.]

The House refused leave for any more explanations.
Mr. CAVE JOHNSON withdrew his motion for adjourn

ment.

Mr. CAMPBELL again attempted to explain.
Mr. TURNEY objected.

Mr. PETRIKIN moved an adjournment; but the motion was negatived by yeas and nays-yeas 50, nays 135. So the House refused to adjourn.

Mr. CURTIS said that, as he believed the morning hour had expired, (viz. that allotted to reports and resolutions,) he demanded the orders of the day, (viz. private bills.)

The CHAIR replied that the hour had not quite expired. Mr. PROFFIT moved a call of the House. Mr. STANLY demanded the yeas and nays. Mr. TURNEY inquired whether a majority of the House had power to refuse to go to the orders of the day?

The CHAIR replied that on ordinary days it had but not on days set apart by rule for private bills and business. Mr. R GARLAND moved to adjourn.

Mr. TURNEY demanded the yeas and nays; which were ordered.

Mr. BELL wished, by general consent, to modify the language of a resolution moved by him, and agreed to by the House, in regard to the Winnebago treaty, on the ground that the language was thought to imply a want of decorum toward the Executive Department, though this had happened unintentionally, and through inadvertence.

Mr. TURNEY objected.

Mr. BELL moved to suspend the rules.

Mr. ADAMS made some remarks in support of Mr. BELL'S request, and moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution had been adopted.

Mr. HOFFMAN moved an adjournment.

On which motion the yeas and nays being ordered, resulted as follows-yeas 89, nays 85.

So the House, between 7 and 8 o'clock, adjourned.

IN SENATE,

MONDAY, March 9, 1840.

The CHAIR submitted a communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, in reply to a resolution of the 25th instant, as to the Five Per Cent. Fund of the State of Alabama; which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.

Also, a message from the President of the United States, transmitting a report from the urgeon General in relation to sites for marine hospitals; which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.

Also, a message from the President, transmitting a correspondence with the Spanish Government, in relation to a reduction of tonnage duties on Spanish vessels; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be

Mr. S. said that, at the request of Mr. OSBORNE, he took the paper, and gave it to the chairman of the committee, supposing that as the committee had power to send for persons and pa pers, he had a right to open it. He, Mr. S. had been merely the instrument of taking it from his room and giving it to the chairThere was nothing in the whole thing man of the committee. which could cast the least imputation on him, Mr. S. con

NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY.

The CHAIR also submitted the following message from the President of the United States: To the Senate:

In addition to information already communicated, in compliance with the resolutions of the Senate of the 17th January last, I think it proper to transmit to the Senate copies of two letters, with enclosures, since received from the Governor of Maine, and of a correspondence relative thereto between the Secretary of State and the British Minister,

Washington, March 9, 1840,

M. VAN BUREN.

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, Augusta, February 15, 1840.

His Excellency M. VAN BUREN,

President of the United States.

SIR: A communication from Mr. Fox, the British Minister, to Mr. Forsyth, Secretary of State, under date of January 26th, contains the following statement:

"It appears from accurate information now in possession of the undersigned, that the Governor of Maine, and, through him, the President and General Government of the United States, have been misinformed as to the facts. In the first place, no reinforcement has been marched to the British post at the Lake Temiscouta; the only change occurring there has been the reliet of a detachment of her Majesty's 24th regiment, by a detachment of equal force of the 11th regiment; this force of one company being now stationed at the Temiscouta post, as it always has been, for the necessary purpose of protecting the stores and accommodations provided for the use of her Majes ty's troops, who may be required, as heretofore, to march ty that route to and from the provinces of Canada and New Bruns wick. In the second place, it is not true, that the British authorities either have built, or are building, barracks on both sides of the St. Johns river, or at the mouth of the Madawaska river; no new barracks hace in fact been built any where,"

This statement has been read by the citizens of this State with the most profound astonishment. And howevei high may be the source from which it emanates, I must be permitted to say, in the language of that high functionary, that "it is not true; though, in justice to him, I should add, that he has been misinformed. Though this State, in the vindication of her rights and maintenance of her interests, relative to her territorial boundary, from past experience, had no reason to expect any material admissions of the truth on the part of the British au. thorines, she was not prepared to meet such a positive and unqualified denial of facts as the foregoing exhibits, especially of facts so easily susceptible of proof. The "accuracy" of the information alleged to be in the possession of the Minister, 18 only equalled by the justice of the pretensions heretofore set up in regard to title.

But, not to be bandying assertions where proof is abundant, I deem it my duty to transmit to your Excellency the depositions of a number of gentlemen, citizens of this State, of great re spectabily, and whose statements are entitled to the most implicit confidence.

These depositions abundantly prove, that up to May last, nearly two months subsequent to the arrangement entered iato through the mediation of General Scott, no troops whatever were stationed at Tymiscouta lake: that in August, September, and October, the number did not exceed twenty-five; while now it has been increased to about two hundred: that, prior to May, no barracks had been erected at Temiscouta; but that, since that time, two have been built at the head of the lake, besides some five or six other buildings apparently adapted to the establishment of a permanent military post, and, at the foot of the lake, two or more buildings for barracks and other military purposes: tha, though no new barracks have been erected at Madawaska, certain buildings, heretofore erected, have been engaged for use as such: that a road has been constructed, connecting the military post at the head and foot of the lake-a tow path made the whole length of the Ma lawaska river-the road from the head of the lake to the military post at the river Des Loup thoroughly repaired--transport boats built, &c. &c

I would further inform your Excellency that an agent has been despatched to Temiscouta and Madawaska for the pur pose of procuring exact information of the state of things there at the present moment; but having incidentally found some evidence of the state of things prior to November last, I have thought best to forward it without delay for the purpose of disabusing the Government and the country of the errors into which they may have been led by the communication be fore alluded to. The report of the agent will be transmitted as soon as received, which may not be short of two weeks. Under these circumstances, I have only to repeat my official call upon the General Government for the protection of this

State from incasion.

I have the honor to be, with great respect,
Your Excellency's most obedient servant,
JOHN FAIRFIELD,
Governor of Maine.

To his Excellency Hon. JOHN FAIRFIELD,

Governor of Maine. The undersigned has the honor to report that, in accordance with your commission of the 6th instant, he proceeded imme diately to the St. John's river, Temiscouata lake, &c. and as certained by actual observation the following facts:

That twenty two railes below the mouth of Fish river, on the south side of the St. John's, and nearly opposite the Madawaska river, a house has been fitted up for barracks, and is rented by the English Government for that purpose, though no troops are there at present. It is built of hewn timber, two sto ries high, about sixty feet long and thirty wide. It has bunks prepared for over one hundred men. It is now in charge of one man only. From thence he followed up the Madawaska river, observing the tow path on its east bank, which has been made and repaired by the English Government, under contracts given out by James A. MacLauchlin, esq. of New Brunswick, the gentleman who has heretofore assumed to act as Warden of the disputed territory. This work was accomplished the past season; the length corresponds with that of the east side of the Madawaska river, which is about twenty-six miles long.

Two miles and a half below the foot of the Temiscouata Jake, on the west bank of the Madawaska river, the English erected, early last summer, a barrack, about eighty feet long At this post, and thirty wide, and two small out buildings. there are now stationed one sergeant, one corporal, and five private soldiers of company No. 3, 11th regiment in the Eng lish service, where they have been since about the first of Janu

ary last.

Near this point commences a road, connecting it with the English works next described, built the past season under con tracts given out by said MacLaughlan, for the distance of sixteen miles, ten of which are fully completed, and the remain. ing six nearly. That fifteen miles from the foot of Temiscouata lake, on its west ide, the English have erected eight buildings as barracks for soldiers, officers' quarters, a hospital, a magazine, a storehouse, and a commissary's house, all of which are sur sounded by ditches, breastworks, and stockades, on three sides; the fourth is not fully completed. An accurate plan of all these works accompanies this report, and is here particularly refer

red to,