that they were not members of this House, and thus defeat the enjoyment of this high privilege. But this was not all. Not only did the character of member of this House confer high privileges, but it also created disabilities. Another clause of the Constitution provided that "no Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time." The decision of the CHAIR would determine whether this disability was, or was not, created; and here was another feature of interest. View it in whatever aspect you please, and you perceive, in the breast of the Governor's members, a direct interest in the event of this question-an interest coming not only within the spirit, but the letter of the rule. He could have hoped that delicacy would have been a motive strong enough to have prevented these gentlemen from voting. The force of this sentiment, however, depended so much upon the anxieties, the temperament, the passions, and prejudices of men, that it was not always safe to calculate upon its restraining efficacy. He had not the most satisfactory pledge that it would be a very potent sentiment in this case.

Mr. BIDDLE said that an effort had been made, day after day, to fix upon the Opposition the odium of the delay which had attended the organization of the House. Doubtless there would be a heavy responsibility before the people on those to whom the delay could be fairly attributed. Here had been a mass of men, called to a high trust, struggling to take a form appropriate to legislative action, without a presiding officer authorized to enforce order, and, indeed, without any established rules of order to be enforced. We had been preserved from disreputable scenes only by the general sense of what was due to the character of the country, and by the spirit of forbearance and courtesy which he was happy to see had been brought here from all quarters. The events of yesterday, Mr. B. thought, would sufficiently relieve his political friends from the reproaches which had been so perseveringly cast upon them. The difficulty into which we had been thrown by the CLERK, or his advisers, by his unprecedented course, and the dogged adherence to that course, was, at length, overcome, Mr. CHAIRMAN, by your appointment. This step was taken and justified by the instinct of self-preservation. We were about to die of an abstraction. We have been rescued from this danger. The first manly movement proved that the fetters of steel supposed to be around us were mere cobwebs.

Standing, then, at the very point which we occupied on Monday, at noon, Mr. B. said he was anxious that the eye of the country should be kept steadily fixed on every step of our progress.

At the first moment after we asserted the power of action, by placing you in the Chair, a motion was submitted which required the acting CLERK to call the names of all whose credentials conformed to the laws of their respective States. This mction brought up distinctly the question, whether we should adhere to established and unbroken usage. It proposed to do what the CLERK should have done originally, and what he had always done heretofore. It assumed the principle that the credentials referred to constituted per se a right on the part of a Representative of the people to take a place amongst those who could themselves pretend to no higher badge of authenticity; and that, at this stage of organization, we must, of necessity, look with deference, and not in a spirit of sharp criticism, to that ostensible right which all brought here alike.

The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. RHETT] has moved to lay this resolution on the table with a view to introduce again some one of the various schemes that have led us a chase for four entire days. If Mr. B. understood him aright, he intended to move that the "disputed members" should be passed over and a quorum be formed without them.

This project was substantially the same as that offered on the first day of the session by a gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Rives.] It had fixed his

(Mr. B.'s) attention at the time as one of engrossing interest, and preliminary in its character; and he had endeavored to claim for it the attention and decision of the House. But, amidst the medley of topics which were thrown into the debate, in the absence of all rules of order, it had been lost sight of, or only reappeared occasionally when pure weariness of a desultory and seemingly endless debate led to an impatience for something like method, and an eager desire to escape by any avenue from the labyrinth in which we were involved.

The project was one which had a show of plausibility about it, and addressed itself favorably to those who were anxious to get rid of this unpleasant matter as speedily as possible.

But, Mr. CHAIRMAN, in our eagerness to escape, we must not leave behind us a precedent fraught with mischiefs far greater than any temporary embarrassment. The present posture of affairs is one which must recur at the commencement of every future Congress. It is not a matter which passes off and terminates in itself. We cannot escape responsibility to those who come after us and to the country. What we do is for good or evil hereafter. The great outline of proceeding now adopted will be looked to by our successors, when the spirit of compromise and the pledges of forbearance that accompanied it shall have been forgotten.

In considering the merits of this scheme, I must assume that, in practice, the task of deciding upon and announcing the disputed and undisputed members will be exercised by the CLERK, as has been done at the present session. We are now to take up and adopt his proscribed list. We have nothing else before us to indicate a dispute; and the late movement did not, as I understand it, proceed on the ground of disapprobation of this part of his conduct. What, then, is substantially the lesson to be drawn from our proceedings? The CLERK, having announced the name of one Representative from New Jersey, withholds the names of the other five, on the ground that their seats are contested. Of the nature of the contest we officially know nothing. It is proposed now that we acquiesce in this proceeding of the CLERK without further question; that he shall proceed with the list, and, whenever he chooses to say that a dispute exists, he is to drop the whole or a part of any given delegation. Those who may remain, after this arbitrary and uncontrolled process of expurgation by the CLERK, are to sit in judgment on the rest, taking up the cases serialim, and excluding from the judicial function all those who have been ordered by the CLERK to stand aside as disputed.

Sir, is not the bare statement of the proposition enough to show that it cannot be a safe and practicable one? A Clerk, whose own re-election depends on the composition of the House, at a given moment is made absolute and uncontrolled master over that composition! He has only to assert that the seats of his opponents, or some of them, are disputed, in order to insure a majority of those who, he knows, will vote for him, and for a Speaker of the same party. It is optional with these men, when once seated as a quorum, to act as they please. They have the power; and who can say that it will not be exercised? I am far from supposing that any gentleman would be wilfully perfidious to the pledge of moderation and forbearance that seems to be loosely passing round. But the very necessity for these pledges shows that the rule cannot work well in practice. It is our own off-pring, and we may be willing to conceal its deformities; but the next Congress will find this on record as the process ready prepared to their hands, and they will be disengaged from pledges. The unlimited control must, of necessity, be given to the party having an influence over the CLERK, and that control may be perpetrated in infinitum, because we know that contests may be started up at an hour's notice. Besides, sir, who has a right to give pledges on the subject? Who has a right to place the exercise of his legislative functions at the chance of this lottery? And what is the nature of the pledge? That we will not elect a Speaker or transact business until these disputed cases are settled? Is this the pledge? And where is it to lead us? We have already heard it

announced by gentlemen on this floor, in swelling terms, that they are not going to yield to forms and technicalities--to the broad seals of States, or the certificates of Governors-that they will not be satisfied without probing this matter to the bottom, and ascertaining whether Governor Pennington has practised a fraud on the people of New Jersey. Indeed! And so, sir, we are pledged to abandon the duties of legislation, to remain here in our respective parts of judges and suitors, as the CLERK shall arrange us, until materials shall be collected to pass on the alleged misdeeds of Governor Pennington.

But suppose, Mr. CHAIRMAN, there should not be a quorum of undisputed seats? Nobody knows, at present, how many seats are disputed. That knowledge rests exclusively with the CLERK. He is to say whether I, for example, am to act as a judge over others, or am myself to be put upon trial. Every one waits in breathless anxiety to know his fate. And if any advantage can be drawn from a dispute, will not one be trumped as a matter of course? The question will be, in each district, not why a dispute should be raised, but why a dispute should not be raised; it will serve to justify a wrangle, and in high party times any shallow pretext may be laid hold of; it will, at least, provide a set-off to some dispute on the other side equally frivolous. No man ever failed at a popular election, without believing himself very ill used, and he is in a mood to listen with eagerness to representations which tend, at least, to break the first chagrin of disappointment, and soothe the smarting wounds of vanity. If, then, a majority of cases be disputed, we are absolutely at the end of this contrivance-this wretched makeshift. You have renounced and brought into di-credit the only safe and practicable rule. It will, at least, labor under the disadvanvantage of having been, during one Congress, decried and overruled. Can you expect to lift it from disgrace, and restore it to favor, in the face, not only of eager passions and importunate interests, but of your own fatal example?

What was the new code of evidence which gentlemen sought to introduce here? The prima facie positive, under the great seal of a State, in all the forms of authentication, was sneered it—it was to go for nothing; but the prima facie negative of a CLERK's breath was potent enough to disfranchise a great Commonwealth! The laws of New Jersey on this subject formed a part of the Constitution of the United States. That instrument referred to and adopted the State laws, which thus acquired as high a sanction as if they had been incorporated in'o it in 1787 The oath to support the Constitution reached to, and comprehended, those laws.

It seems to be conceded that the course proposed was in defiance of all usage in our own country, but an intimation had been thrown out in various quarters that the practice of the House of Commons lent a sanction to it.

[Mr. B. here appealed to Mr. THOMAS, Mr. VANDERFOEL, and Mr. RHETT to know distinctly if they so contended. These gentlemen were understood to disclaim any special familiarity with the subject, but to have stated their general impressions.]

Mr. B. said he had put the question in all cour tesy and respect, with a view to know how far his own recollection was at variance with that of others. He had no doubt that the usage there was precisely the same as here. There could be no other rule that would enable such a body as the House of Commons to get to the despatch of business. During the discussion, he had sent to the library for one of the popular Digests, supposing that a reference to the point might be found. The work he held in his hand was of no great authority, but, perhaps, best suited the purpose, as likely to contain only what was familiar and well settled. He then read from Jacob's Law Dictionary, (title Parliament:)

"When the right of election is doubtful, and consequently it is uncertain that candidates are duly elected, the returning officer may, and for his own safely ought to, make a double return. But this must be done upon the returning officer's own judgment, not upon the agreement of the parties. If two or more sets of electors make each a return

of a different member, (which is called a double election,) that return only which the returning officer to whom the sheriff's precept was directed has signed and sealed, is good. And the members by him returned shall sit until displaced on petition.— Sim. 184. By the Irish act, 35 Geo. 3, c. 29, the returning officer (even though not otherwise qualified to vote) must, in case of an equality of votes at the poll, give his casting vote and make a re

turn."

Here, then, was the rule, (and no other could ever be carried out,) that the right to sit of the individual coming within the requisitions of the law must, in the first instance, be deemed conclusive. Such had been the doctrine triumphantly carried out by the present Chief Magistrate in the case which arose in New York-a case to which his friends in this House had not attempted to make a reply. Mr. B. said he did not refer to the principles on which, in England, the ultimate right was settled on a petition to the House. They turned on the Grenville act and other subsequent statutes, all of which were incorporated into one in 1828. Those principles were substantially the same as in our own country.

But the question might be asked, If the majority refuse to act on the old usage, what is to be done? Must there not be a compromise? Must we not yield to some scheme by which one portion of the House shall, at hap-hazard, he constituted judges over the other portion? Each one must answer these questions for himself. Mr. B. was not tenacious about small matters; but here, in his opinion, was a course proposed that struck at a principle on the sacred observance of which, in sincerity and good faith, must depend the future organization of this House in times of deep party excitement. He could not compromise, however he might he overruled. Doubtless a majority might insist on any proposition, however absurd, and whatever impediment it placed in the way of the rightful action of the Government. It might refuse to receive a message from the Senate until the credentials of that body were explored and the allegations of opposing claimants fully considered and passed upon. It might refuse to receive the President's message on some similar allegation. Would the Senate or President proffer terms of compromise? Mr. B. said he could not suffer himself to be jaded into an abandonment of what he deemed a matter of vital interest.

Mr. B. referred to the charge of usurpation, which had been urged against the CHAIRMAN for making a decision when called upon. What was he to do? Refuse to act? Take a leaf out of the CLERK's book? The result would be that the House must have driven him out of the Chair in order to place there somebody who would go through this very act of "usurpation," and thus put the question in a train for settlement.

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky, rose and asked the CLERK of the House to state what was the decision of the CHAIR from which an appeal had been taken.

[The CLERK hete read the resolution of Mr. WISE, of Virginia, at follows:

Resolved, That the Acting Clerk of this House shall proceed with the call of the members from the different States of the Union in the usual way, calling the names of such members from New Jersey as hold the regular and legal commissions from the Executive of that State.

And then the following resolution, which Mr. RHETT, of South Carolina, offered as a substitute: Resolved, That the House will proceed to call the names of gentlemen whose rights to seats are not disputed or contested; and after the names of such members are called, and before a Speaker is elected, they shall, provided there be a quorum of such present, then hear and adjudge upon the elections, returns, and qualifications of all claimants to seats contested on this floor.

The CLERK then stated that Mr. RHETT moved to lay the resolution of Mr. Wise upon the table with a view to offer his resolution as a substitute; and upon the question of laying Mr. WISE's resolution upon the table, tellers were called. Mr. DROMGOOLE, of Virginia, being one of the tellers appointed by the CHAIR, the question

being about to be put upon the adoption of the resolution of Mr. RRETT, rose and observed to the CHAIR, that he had been appointed by the CHAIR to act as one of the tellers, and was ready to discharge the duty assigned him, but desired to be instructed by the CHAIR how he was to perform it. The CHAIR replied that he conceived the rule to be that such persons as possessed commissions in confor mity with the Constitution of the United States and the laws of New Jersey were entitled to vote as members of the House, and that no others were entitled; and from this decision of the CHAIR, Mr. VANDERPOEL, of New York, appealed to the House.]

Mr. WHITE then said: Mr. CHAIRMAN, forgiving this decision, you have been charged with being guilty of an act of usurpation. Sir, the appetite for denunciation did not stop here. The honorable member from New York [Mr. VANDERPOEL] denounced your decision as a gross usurpation. And another honorable member from Maryland [Mr. F. THOMAS] followed suit, and characterized your decision as an act of monstrous usurpation. Mr. WHITE (addressing himself to the CHAIR) said, if it be true you have been guilty of the high offence with which you stand charged, neither the courtesy of debate, the sanctity of the exalted station you now fill as presiding officer of this House-no, sir, nor even your gray hairs, should screen you from the odium due to the usurper and the despot. But, sir, if it shall turn out, upon a fair investigation of the question, that the decision of the CHAIR is in strict conformity to the Constitution, to law, to all past parliamentary usage in this country, as well as in all other civilized countries, what should be the sentence pronounced upon your accusers? Sir, the undivided execrations of mankind should be thundered in their ears.

Mr. W. contended that the CHAIR was perfectly justifiable in declaring the opinion from which the appeal was taken-he had no alternative left him but to decide, or shrink from a discharge of his duty. The question remains, did he decide right? Mr. W. remarked that, before he went into the argument upon the correctness of the opinion of the CHAIR upon principle, and upon usage and precedent, he would call the attention of the House, and particularly the attention of the member from New York, [Mr. VANDERPOEL,] and the member from Maryland, [Mr. F. THOMAS,] to an authority in support of the decision of the CHAIR, that he knew would not be controverted by either of the honorable gentlemen; and out of your own mouths, said Mr. W. I will convict you.

Mr. W. then proceeded to read from the speech of Mr. VANDERPOEL, of New York, delivered in the case of the contested election of Moore and Letcher in the year 1834. Mr. W. asserted that the gentleman from New York [Mr. VANDERPOEL] in that debate, ably and eloquently maintained the precise doctrine contained in the decision of the CHAIR, and the very opposite doctrine now so vehemently contended for by the gentleman. debate the gentleman held the following language:

In that

"No, sir, I go for the laws and the Constitution -whether they define the qualifications of the voter, or prescribe the manner in which this right shall be exercised. I cannot here be persuaded either to jump over the Constitution or crawl under the law, by the captivating doctrine that the right of suffrage is paramount to the law and the Constitution. Sir, know not whence we derive equitable powers so transcendent as those which I have here, to my very great surpise, heard claimed for uspowers which enable us to set the laws and the Constitution at defiance, and authorize us here, in a judicial capacity, to exercise the despot's preroga. tive-to dispense justice according to our abstract notions of right and wrong. Sir, will not this lead a perfect mobocracy? Sir, I had always supposed that all legal ends in civilized communities, and under free and constitutional Governments, were to be obtained by lawful and constitutional means; and that it is better, far better, that the end should sometimes be lost, thau adopt the more than Vandal heresy, that the 'end justifies the means.""

This, Mr. W. charged, was the language of the eloquent gentleman upon that occasion, containing doctrines as sound as Holy Writ-the very doctrines of the decision of the CHAIR-doctrines that

will stand the scrutiny of "talents and of time." In that debate the gentleman acknowledged himself the power of the Constitution; according to his political creed then, the law and the Constitution was snpreme, and that right of suffrage itself was to be sacrificed if it came in conflict with the law of the State. But now, sir, Democracy and popular rights are paramount to law and the Constitution. Now, this same gentleman denounces this very doctrine as a "small, miserable, squeaking, technicality;" and those members who claim their seats from New Jersey, under the commission of the Governor, executed in strict conformity to the laws of that State, as "pretenders coming here under the cloak of a sheer bond." O! consistency, thou art a virtue ! Mr. W. appealed to the gentleman now to justify his present course. He appealed to the good sense of every member in the House to decide whether the opinion given by the CHAIR was not fully and amply supported by the very extracts quoted from the speech of the gentleman in 1834. Mr. W. asked, what had brought so radical a change in the gentleman's political creed? Had his recent tour to Europe furnished him fresh light upon Democracy?

Mr. W. said, Mr. Chairman, I will now address myself for a short time to the honorable member from Maryland, [Mr. F. THOMAS ] He asked the undivided attention of the gentleman from Maryland (who occupied a seat immediately in front of Mr. W.) whilst he read from an authority which he well knew that gentleman would recognise as sound doctrine, however much others might be disposed to controvert it. Mr. W. then proceeded to read from the speech of Mr. F. THOMAS, of Maryland, delivered at the late session of Congress, in the contested election of Claiborne and Gholson, the following extracts:

"When the Clerk had reached the names of the members elected from the State of Mississippi, one of them has already told you he would repair to the table to be sworn; and in this he is right. Who shall infringe the righ's for which he contends? He is one of the chosen Representatives of the people of Mississippi. He has with him a certificate of election, signed by the Governor of that State. He appears here with his colleague with the same proof to take his seat that we each have. And they have the same authority to question our right as we have theirs. They have the un!roken custom for their guide; and no injustice can be done to any portion of the American people by a strict adherence to this wholesome and oonvenient usage."

Mr. W. remarked that, in that case, and upon that occasion, the Governor's certificate was conclusive to the gentleman's mind; so sacred, that no man should dare question the right of the member to qualify. Upon that occasion, the gentleman held usage and precedent in-high estimation. Yes, sir, upon that occasion a "strict adherence to usage" was the orthodox doctrine. Now, sir, the honorable member (with what courtesy, what consistency, I leave to himself to determine) charges you with being guilty of an act of "monstrous usurpation," for deciding that the members holding the certificate of election, in conformity to the Constitution of the United States, and the laws of the respective States, are entitled to be recognised as members. Is this not strange, passing strange? No, sir; the case being altered, it alters the case. The sitting members, Messis. Claiborne and Gholson, were good Democrats; that being the case, usage and precedent were safe and wholesome guides.

Mr. W. said he would not consume the time of the House in commenting upon the flagrant absurdities and inconsistencies of the gentleman. He would simply say, O! shame, where is thy blush?

Mr. W. said he did not base the correctness of the decision of the CHAIR alone upon the high authorities from which he had read. He found higher authority-he looked to the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of New Jersey, and the laws of that Commonwealth. From these resources, Mr. W. contended, we obtained the rules by which we should be governed in deciding who were members upon this floor, either temporary or perinanent. By the first, we are empowered to judge of the election, returns, and qualifications of our

Mr. SMITH of Maine had distinctly understood the CHAIR, in reply to the question of the honorable gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. DROMGOOLE,] to decide that "those gentlemen from New Jersey who had been returned to the House in accordance with the Constitution of the United States and the laws of New Jersey," were entitled to vote upon the motion of the honorable member from South Carolina, to lay upon the table the resolution of the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. WISE;] and he should have felt bound to have voted to sustain that decision of the CHAIR, upon the appeal therefrom made by the gentleman from New York. He contended that the gentlemen who had been, by a majority of the people of New Jersey, elected to represent them in Congress, were alone legally elected, both by the laws of New Jersey and the Constitution of the United States, and could alone be legally returned to this House; and in accordance with the decision of the CHAIR, he presumed that the gentlemen they elected would vote. But when the decision of the CHAIR was read by the CLERK, as put by him upon the records of the House, "that those gentlemen only who have the certificates of the Governor of New Jersey, under the broad seal of the State," were entitled to seats in the House, which decision, as thus recorded, he had observed the CLERK to submit to the revision of the CHAIR before it was read, and to which he had understood the CHAIR to assent, he had felt bound to vote against such decision-a decision setting aside and prostrating the most inestimable privilege of the free institutions of this country. He was satisfied that the record did not conform to the decision of the CHAIR as first promulgated, but was in strict conformity with that which had been subsequently read from the CLERK's desk, by authority of the CHAIR.

Mr. WISE had understood the decision of the CHAIR on yesterday to be as the CHAIR had repeated it this morning; and he presumed that the CHAIR had considered the statement made by the CLERK on the journal at that time, as an abbreviation of that decision; and knowing that that was not the time to correct the journal, and that when it was read this morning, would be the time to correct it, no exception was taken to the entry made by the CLERK. This was not the time to make a journal, to be sure, but this was the time correct it, and to place the facts upon it as they did occur. He therefore demanded that the journal might be so corrected as to state the facts.

Mr. CUSHING said he understood the decision of the CHAIR to be as repeated this morning, and the reporter of the Globe bore him out in this opinion. Mr. C. here read the decision as reported in the Globe.

Mr. ATHERTON understood the CHAIR to have decided, on yesterday, that the persons entitled to vote, were those who produced commissions according to the Constitution of the United States, and the laws of New Jersey; but he had no doubt that it was the intention of the CHAIR to identify the individuals who did produce those commissions, because, otherwise, he would have been deciding nothing. He understood the CHAIR, at that time, to refer to the commission of Mr. RANDOLPH, and to those who had produced similar commissions to his, as the persons who were entitled to vote.

Mr. TILLINGHAST said it seemed to him that every gentleman must agree that the decision of yesterday was precisely the statement of it made by the CHAIR this morning; and it seemed to him that the journal ought to state the precise words of that decision. It seemed to him that this was the very object of the journal, and it seemed to him that there ought to be no difficulty about the

matter.

Mr. SMITH of Maine said, there only seemed to be a difference of opinion with regard to the phraseology which should be spread on the record. We all agree, and the CHAIR confirms it to-day, that he did intend to decide, and actually does now decide, that Messrs. AYCRIGG, YORKE, &C. were entitled to vote; and gentlemen wish to spread on the record the reasoning of the CHAIR, which caused that decision. The CHAIR, and those who sustain him, wish to put on the record the reasoning which induced him to make the

decision which he did. Now, he did not know whether it was customary for the SPEAKER of the House to spread on the record the reasons for his decisions. If so, he had no objection to the present amendment; and if this was not the practice of the SPEAKER of the House, he saw no reason for departing from the general course.

Mr. LINCOLN then submitted his amendment, in writing, in the following form:

"The Chairman decided that those persons were entitled to vote who had produced commissions from the Governor of New Jersey, in conformity with the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the State of New Jersey."

Mr. BRIGGS did not agree with the gentleman from Maine [Mr. SMITH] that these were the reasons of the CHAIR for his decision. This was the decision of the CHAIR, in his opinion, and not his

reasons.

Mr. BYNUM said he would state his recollection of the decision of the CHAIR. He heard the CHAIR distinctly announce that those persons were entitled to vote who held commissions under the Constitution and laws of New Jersey, but he had not heard a word mentioned from the CHAIR about the Constitution of the United States. He looked upon the whole of the decision as a usurpation of the rights of the members of the House and of the people of the country, and he was not now for permitting the correcting to be altered, for the purpose of suiting the ulterior designs of any set of individuals. He wanted the CLERK to state positively what did take place, and nothing else. We have arrived at a most novel and extraordinary stage of our proceedings, and he called upon the Democracy of the House, not to permit themselves to be gulled by the technicalities which gentlemen introduce here. He hoped that the facts, as they occurred, would be stated on the journal, but he had no idea of having the record encumbered by the additional amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts, to render a better excuse for the decision of the CHAIR.

The CHAIR stated that he had referred to the Constitution of the United States in his decision, before referring to the laws of the State of New Jersey.

Mr. MERCER also contended that the decision of the CHAIR of yesterday was precisely as it had been stated by the CHAIR to-day, and he held that this decision was not a usurpation of the rights of he House.

Mr. WHITE then called the attention of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. DROOMGOOLE] to the decision of the CHAIR, as reported in one of the papers of this city, and inquired if he was not in error in regard to his recollection of it, and of the inquiry which he had propounded to the CHAIR.

Mr. DROMGOOLE said he distinctly recollected that the CHAIR had said that those gentlemen were entitled to vote, who held commissions in pursuance of the Constitution of the United States, and the laws of New Jersey. If, however, the gentleman from Kentucky would read a few paragraphs farther in that report, he would find that the CHAIR had declared that those who hold commissions similar to that held by Mr. RANDOLPH, were the persons who were entitled to vote.

The CHAIR said he had stated that those five persons who held certificates similar to the member from New Jersey, who had been called and answered to his name, were the persons who would, in the opinion of the CHAIR be entitled to

vote.

Mr. DROMGOOLE. Certainly that was the decision of the CHAIR.

The CHAIR then propounded the question to the House upon the amendment of the journal, when, tellers were called for, and the CHAIR appointed Mr. GIDDINGS, of Ohio, and Mr. CRABB, of Alabama, to act as tellers-both opposed to the Administration.

Mr. BRIGGS suggested to the CHAIR, that the usual course was to appoint a tetler from each of the two parties.

The CHAIR then named Mr. BYNUM and Mr. GIDDINGS to act as tellers.

Mr. BYNUM said he should like to know whe

ther he was to count those persons whose seats were contested on this floor or not.

Mr. RICE GARLAND objected to that question being put.

The CHAIR said that that question had been decided on yesterday.

Mr. BYNUM. Then I will not act as a teller of this meeting.

The CHAIR said the gentlemen who acted as tellers would please count all who passed between them; and if any member passed through whose title to a seat they considered contested, they should report that fact to the meeting, and the meeting would decide on the question.

Mr. BYNUM wished to understand his duty as a teller, if he was to act as such. He did not think that the members whose rights were contested in the House should vote under any circumstances, and he did not think that the CHAIR had the power to decide that they had the right to vote. Mr. B. then refused to act as a teller.

The CHAIR then named Mr. SMITH, of Maine, to act as a teller.

Mr. SMITH stated that he was unacquainted, personally, with the members of the House, and did not know the members from New Jersey on either side, so that it would be impossible for him to report to the House whether any persons had voted whose rights were contested.

Mr. RANDOLPH. I will stand by the side of the gentleman, and tell him the names of the members from New Jersey on both sides as they pass him.

The House then divided upon the amendment of the journal, and the tellers reported 106 in favor of the amendment, and 107 against it, neither of the New Jersey members voting upon the question. So the amendment was not agreed to.

Mr. SLADE then moved to strike from the decision of the CHAIR of yesterday, as entered upon the journal, the words, "the CHAIR made this de cision with the greater confidence, because he had declared it before he had been placed by a vote of the House in the place he now occupied.

Mr. PETRIKIN wished to know if it was in order now to amend the paragraph which they had just decided the would not amend.

Mr. SLADE then withdrew his amendment.

Mr. GRAVES then moved to amend the journal, by striking out from the declaration made by Mr. DROMGOOLE yesterday, the words "unless otherwise directed by the House." Mr. G. felt perfectly convinced that that language had not been used by the gentleman from Virginia at the time he put the interrogatory to the CHAIR, therefore he desired that it might be struck from the journal.

Mr. WISE hoped his friend from Kentucky" would not press this amendment, for he recollected distinctly that his colleague had used the words "unless instructed otherwise by the House."

Mr. GRAVES contended that if those words had been used by the gentleman from Virginia, they were used after the CHAIR had made his decision, and not at the time that he propounded the inquiry to the CHAIR, and consequently they ought to be struck from the journal at the place where they were inserted. He was the more convinced that the gentleman had not used these words at the time referred to because he had the testimony of the fact from the reports of every reporter and letter writer in the House.

un

Mr. DROMGOOLE hoped it was not the inten tion of the gentleman from Kentucky to impute to him the charge of having made a wilful misstatement on the floor. He was strangely mistaken in his recollection, if he did not use the words, less otherwise directed by the House." He did not know what the reporters had said in relation to this matter; and as to what the letter writers had said, he was also uninformed, for he read but few of their letters. But he thought he had stated on yesterday that he did not rise to debate the question, but being called to discharge a duty as a teller, and being unwilling to decline discharging that duly, he had made an inquiry as to the manner in which that duty was to be discharged. He had then stated that there were present ten gentlemen from New Jersey, who had placed their names on desks on this floor, and who claimed seats as mem

bers, and he had asked how he could decide as to which of these persons were entitled to vote. He had then staled to the CHAIR, that if he was called upon to discharge this duty, he would count the whole ten members, unless otherwise directed by the House. The CHAIR, as he understood him, had made a general decision, as to who should be counted, when he replied that he did not know the members from New Jersey, but he was quite certain that before the CHAIR made his final decision, he (Mr. D.) stated that he would count all the members from New Jersey, unless otherwise directed by the House.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. ADAMS) said he certainly understood the gentleman from Virginia to say that he would count all the persons claiming seats from New Jersey unless otherwise directed by the House; and it was because the gentleman had said that he would count persons whom the CHAIR supposed could not constitutionally vote, that the CHAIR had made the decision which had been referred to. There were, as it appeared, eleven members on the floor claiming seats as the Representatives of the State of New Jersey, when that State was entitled to but six members; and when one of the tellers declared that unless otherwise directed, he would count the whole of these eleven persons, the CHAIR found himself compelled to say that he could only count those legally and constitutionally entitled to seals. This was the reason why the CHAIR made the decision as as he had made it. Otherwise he would have decided as he had done done to-day. If it had not been for that declaration of the teller, the CHAIR would have said to the tellers, that whenever a person attempted to vote whom they considered as not entitled to vote, they should report that fact to the meeting, and the meeting would decide on the question. It was this declaration of the gentleman from Virginia, that he would count all who presented themselves, which induced the CHAIR to decide that those persons only were entitled to vote who had presented the evidence required by the Constitution of the United States and the laws of New Jersey; and in making this decision, the CHAIR had no disposition to usurp the powers of the House; because he was perfectly aware that what did take place would take place-that an appeal would be taken from the decision of the CHAIR to the meeting itself, and that the meeting would have to decide it. His decision was merely provisional, and it was for the meeting to correct that decision, if they conceived it to be in error. The CHAIR Conceived this to be no usurpation of the powers of the body; and in regard to the observations which had been made on the floor, charging him with having committed a monstrous usurpation, he would only say, in reply to the gentleman who made these observations, if they were made for the purpose of intimidating the CHAIR from performing his duties as he understood them, they were mistaken in regard to the effect which they would have. The CHAIR would, however,here observe that, in his belief, there was in this meeting at the present time, more of heat than of diversity of opinion upon the subject. The CHAIR made this decision, aware not only that it was subject to appeal to the majority of the meeting itself, but he decided nothing as to the power of the members from New Jersey to vote on the main question which was in issue-that is to say, upon the election of Speaker of this House. The CHAIR considered himself in the place he now occupied for the sole purpose of organizing the House, and the moment it was organized, the CHAIRMAN Would call upon them, according to the requisitions of the Constitution to elect a Speaker, and under the rules of the House, that election was to be viva voće. When that took place, all the powers of the present CHAIRMAN closed. But upon that election of Speaker, if any individual presented himself, whom any other member of the House believed not authorized to vote, objection could be taken to the counting of his vote, and then the House would finally decide on that question. As to all these questions which had been agitated upon the motions to amend the journal, the CHAIR would only say, as he had said before, that there was more heat in them than diversity of opinion; and the CHAIR, above all things, was desirous to

allay that heat, and bring the meeting to a cool and caim decision on the question before them; and as to the ultimate resultthe question whether the New Jersey members should vote upon the election of a Speaker, or not -he thought it time to settle that question when it should arise. At the present moment, when the question was made as to who should be counted, the CHAIR was not compelled to forbid the tellers from doing that which they said they would dothat is to say, count persons not entitled to vote; and in order to prevent that, the CHAIR proposed that the tellers should report whoever passed between them, and if any person passed through, whose right to vote was contested, to report that fact to the meeting. Well, what was the fact? No objection was made on either side, to any person who passed through; and who can tell that the case will not be precisely the same in the election of a Speaker. Who can tell whether this question will arise at all. If it does arise, then the House, being organized, will be prepared to decide it in the regular form. The CHAIRMAN considers that his duties will be at an end the moment the House is organized; for he will then call upon the House to elect a Speaker, and whenever objections is made to any member voting on that election, it will be for the House to decide that question. The CHAIRMAN can decide nothing in regard to that, as he was appointed to the CHAIR for no other purpose than to complete the call of the roll of the House, and have put down upon it the name of every person claiming to be a member. The CHAIR has decided no question whatever which will effect the practical point of controversy, aud when the House arrived at that, it can decide it freely and fully. Where, then, was the usurpation spoken of in the decisions of the CHAIR? The CHAIR has said that his sole and greatest object here was, if possible, to allay the heat exhibited, and bring every member to decide coolly on the question before him. There was an expedient whic hhad occurred to the CHAIR of avoiding all these questions of difficulty, and that was a case which occurred in the last Presidential election. In that case, it will be within the recollection of most of the members of this House, there was a question whether the vote of the State of Michigan should be admitted and counted. It will be recollected that, at that time, the State had not been admitted into the Union, but had formed itself into a State Government, and appointed electors to vote for President and Vice President. When the votes of the different States were sent in, Michigan among the rest,a question arose, the same in principle with the present question, as to whether the vote of the State of Michigan should be counted, and the course taken at that time was this: A resolution was presented to the Senate and passed, as follows:

Resolved, That in relation to the votes of Michigan, if the counting or omitting to count them shall not essentially change the result of the election, they shall be reported by the President of the Senate in the following manner: "Were the votes of Michigan to be counted, the result would be for A. B. for President of the United States votes. If not counted, for A. B. for President of the United States votes. But in either case A. B. is elected President of the United States." And in the same manner for Vice President.

This resolution was coincided in by the House of Representatives, and accordingly when the votes were counted up on this floor, the votes of Michigan were included, and it was announced-for Martin Van Buren, if the votes of Michigan be counted, 170; if the votes of Michigan be not counted, 167; but in either event, Martin Van Buren of New York is elected President of the United States.

It seemed to him that this precedent furnished a principle by which this whole difficulty might be settled. Let the members from New Jersey be counted as voting, as he held that to be the due of the people of New Jersey, for he begged the meetting to understand, in the course he had taken, that it was the right of the people of New Jersey which he attempted to sustain. If those persons were prevented from voting who come here commissioned by the Governor of New Jersey, the people

of New Jersey were deprived of their representation in Congress, and it was his wish, above all things, if possible, to avoid the suppression of the voice of the people of New Jersey. As to the question whether the State of New Jersey should be represented by one set of men or another set of men, he believed there was not much diversity of opinion in the House. At least, for himself, he would appeal to the resolution which he had offered at the last se sion. He would appeal to that resolution as an evidence that then, as now, his opinion was that a Speaker could not be elected until this question was first decided. That was his opinion then; it was his opinion now; and he had offered this resolution to avoid the very diffi culty in which we were now involved. He was of opinion then, as now, that the election of Speaker could not take place, considering the state of parties in this House, until the question with regard to the New Jersey members was first settled, and he had offered that resolution to provide for the case. The House chose not to consider that resolution, and the case was unprovided for, and it is now for the House to decide. The House, when it is prop-rly constituted, will be competent to decide it, and it may, before the election of a Speaker, appoint a committee to examine this question between the different returns from New Jersey, and report that to the House, and the House may decide upon it. With respect to the difficulty of persons attempting to vote whose rights are disputed, it appeared by the question just settled, that no such case had arisen, and it was premature to look for. ward to such a case. When the question came practically up as to whether those members should be counted or not, it appeared to him that the case of the vote of the State of Michigan, in the last Presidential election, would provide a solution of that difficulty. And with respect to the right of voting of these members, there was a precedent under the old form of Government, which might serve to throw some light on the subject. If gentlemen would consult the journals of the old Congress, fourth volume, page 406, they would find that a gentleman claiming a seat from the State of Rhode Island, by the name of Howell, rose to speak u on a motion, when he was called to order by Mr. Mercer, and a question was made whether he had a right to speak or participate in the proceedings of Congress, because the State of Rhode Island only elected members for one year, and that year had expired. This question was put to the House in ten or fifteen different forms, as to whether the members froms Rhode Islaud should be permitted to vote, and on every one of those questions, the members from Rhode Island did vote until the question was finally given up. Now with these two precedents in view, he would ask gentlemen to examine the matter before us, and see if they could not come to the solution of the question perfectly satisfactory on all sides. Mr. GRAVES made some further remarks in support of his motion.

Mr. WISE said he would state the facts again, and as he was very confident in the truth of his recollections, he would ask it of his friend from Kentucky as a personal faver that he would withdraw his motion. He wouid state again that his colleague did make the declaration he asserted he did; and he was confirmed in his recollections from the fact when the CHAIR reported to the House what had been said by his colleague, the latter rose, and corrected him by stating that he said that he would count all who presented themselves, unless otherwise directed by the House. In the correctness of this statement, Mr. W. said he was sustained by the recollections of all the gentlemen round him, both of the Opposition and Aministration parties.

Mr. GRAVES said it appeared to him that there was only a misunderstanding between himself and the gentleman from Virginia. The gen tleman's colleague did, it was true, add the words stated, but it was after the decision of the CHAIR was given. If the appeal was made on the ground that the gentleman from Virginia would, unless otherwise directed by the House, &c. and it should so appear on the journal, he would vote against sustaing the decision of the CHAIR. But if it was,