for as heretofore provided for, and agreeably to all the reservations and provisions contained in the joint resolution of the 3d of March, 1819."

The House having adjourned on yesterday in the midst of an unfinished call,

Mr. BRIGGS now moved that all further proceedings on that call be suspended.

Mr. GRAVES hoped not. He desired to have a full House when the question was taken.

The SPEAKER stated that, if the call was pro. ceeded in, it would extend only to those members who were absent at the call of the roll last evening.

On motion of Mr. GRAVES, all further proceedings on that call were suspended; and Mr. MORGAN moved a (new) call of the House.

Mr. GRAVES asked the yeas and nays, which were ordered.

The SPEAKER then s'ated that the first business before the House was the question of privilege, being the report of the Select Committee raised to investigate the facts in the case of Messrs. R. GARLAND and BINUM.

So Mr. MORGAN suspended his motion for a call of the House, and Mr. GRAVES withdrew his motion for the yeas and nays.

In reply to an inquiry from Mr. BLACK, the SPEAKER stated that the report of the Select Committee on Printing wou'd be the business next in order, after the case of privilege should have been disposed of.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

The business now before the Hous: being the "report of the Select Committee appointed to investigate the facts relative to the disorder and personal violence which took place in the House between two of its members, to wit, RICE GARLAND and JESSE A. BYNUM,"

Mr. UNDERWOOD hoped, in case the report was taken up, that either prompt action would be had thereon, or that the matter would be indefinitely postponed. With that view, he would take the liberty of presenting some resolutions he had prepared, for the purpose of submitting a few points for the consideration of the House.

In making the motion for the appointment of a committee to invtiesgate this matter, he had been careful to word it in such a way as not to require the committee to report any proposition for the action of the House. He had good reasons for so doing, which would appear in the sequel. What he now proposed came entirely from himself as an individual member of the House, without being sanctioned by any member of the committee, in any way whatever. When on the committee, he did not think he had, under the resolution of the House, any right to recommend any such proposition for their action, but had intended to offer the resolutions he now presented, when the matter shall be taken up by the House.

At the request of Mr. CORWIN, Mr. U. here yielded the floor for a moment.

Mr. CORWIN then said that, as he was compelled to leave the city on indispensable business, he would ask the House to grant him leave of ab. sence for three weeks from Saturday next.

And the leave was granted.

And, on his motion, Mr. CORWIN was discharged from further service as chairman of the Committee on Public Lands,

Mr. CRABB of Alabama asked to be excused from further service on the Committee of Elections. He took this course from a sense of duty no less to himself than to the parties to the several contests pending before that committee. Such were the general state of his health and his imperious duties to his immediate constituents, as to forbid his giving that attention to the important questions before the committee, which he was in the habit of giving all matters coming specially under his consideration, and he felt that, under the circumstances, to omit the request he had now preferred to the House, would be palpable injustice to the parties concerned, to the House, and to himsel. He felt that he could not sustain himself under the severe labor which must necessarily be incurred by every member of that committee who shall do his duty, and less than that he was unwilling to do in any capacity in which he may be called to act. He assured the

House that, if it were practicable for him further to prosecute his duties on said committee in a proper manner, he should be very far from making this request.

And Mr. C. was excused.

Mr. UNDERWOOD then resumed, and said he would make a few comments on the resolutions he intended to offer, but which he desired might be first read by the CLERK. The resolutions were then read, as follow:

Resolved, That experience has shown the necessity of defining with clearness what shall consti ute disorderly conduct, and a contempt of this House, and of prescribing the punishment for the offence before the deed is done.

Resolved, That it is incompatible with the spirit of the Constitution, if not in conflict with its letter, to punish a ciizen or a member of Congress for disor ferly conduct, for a contempt, or a breach of privilege, until the nature of the offence, the facts necessary to constitute it, and the punishment to be inflicted, have been clearly defined and promulgaiej.

Resolved, therefore, That the following shall henceforth constitute a part of the standing rules of this House, viz:

1. If any person or persons within the Capitol, or any of the enclosed grounds around it, or within any street passing by or around such enclosed grounds, shall hereafter make a noise, or do any other act disturbing or interrupting the deliberations or business of the House of Representatives, or any of its committers, the person or persons so cffending, being thereof convic ed, by a vote or resolution of the House, shall, for such contempt, be severely reprimanded, or imprisoned not less than one nor more than ten days, at the discretion of the House of Representatives.

2. If any person or persons shall hereafter as. sault or strike any member of the House of Representatives, or any other person within the Capitol, or any of the enclosures around the grounds of the Capitol, except it te in self-defence, or some lawful purpose, the person or persons so offending shall be adjudged guilty of a contempt to the House of Representatives; and being thereof convicted, by a vote or resolution of the House, shall be imprisoned there for for a space of time not less than sixty nor more than one hundred and eighty days, at the discretion of the House of Representatives.

3. The person or persons offending within the purview of the two preceding rules, or either of them, shall be arrested by the Sergeant-at arms, upon the warrant of the Speaker, to be issued upon the oath or affirmation of the party applying therefor.

4. Any member of the House who shall, by contumelious words or actions, insult any other member of Congress within the Capitol, or any of the enclosures around it, including the enclosure to the east of the Capitol, shall, on conviction thereof, by a vote or resolution of the House, be s-verely reprimanded for the first offence, and expelled for the second.

5. Any member of the House who shall assault or strike any other member of Congress within the Capitol, or within any of the enclosures around it, including the enclosure to the east of the Capitol, unless in self defence, or some lawful purpose, shall, on conviction thereof, by a vote or resolution of the House, be expelled.

6. It shall require a majority of four-fifths to suspend the rules in order to permit a member to notice and repel any statements which may be found in print or manuscript, reflecting upon the moral, political, or official character of any one.

7. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives, That the following shall constitute an additional joint rule of the two Houses: In cases of personal insult or conflict between a Senator and Representative, a committee of two from the Senate and three from the House shall be appointed to investigate the facts, and report to their respec tive Houses the facts of the case; whereupon that House of which the party in default is a member, shall proceed to punish him according to the rules of either body which he may have violated.

Mr. W. COST JOHNSON rose to inquire of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. UNDERWOOD)

whether it was his intention that these resolutions should first be considered and acted on, before the House had considered the report made by the commitice?

Mr. PETRIKIN (pending Mr. UNDERWOOD'S reply to Mr. JOHN ON) rose to a question of order. He submitted to the Chair that these resolutions were separate and d's inct from the report of the commities, and that they could not be entertained, save by a suspension of the rule.

The SPEAKER was of opinion, he said, that these resolutions were germane to the subject. The committee had reported the facts, these facts were before the House, and it was in order for genilemen to move any resolutions appertaining thereto.

Mr. UNDERWOOD said he would show the relevancy of these resolutions to the report of the committee, and hoped also to be able to show that they ought to be a 'opted.

Mr. W. COST JOHNSON then requested the gentleman from Kentucky to answer his interrogatory, whether it was his (Mr. U's) intention that these resolutions should be considered and acted upon before the House had considered the report of the committee.

Mr. UNDERWOOD said, yes--he wished these resolutions to be acted upon first, and he wished them to be the only action of the House on the subject. It was his desire to show briefly the reasons which induced him to offer them.

Mr. U. af er explaining the purport of the 1st and 2d resolutions, proceeded to say that it was needless to call the attention of members to the provisions of the Constitution which laid down the principles he had enumerated. All here were fully aware of them. He would then ask whether this House had ever undertaken to prescribe what should constitute contempt or disorderly conduct. Look at the rules: from the foundation of the Government down to this time, there was not a sentence on this subject. Upon what, then, did the whole system depend? It depended upon legislative usage, without the positive action of any legislative body; and we had to collect authorities on the subject in the history of the British Parliament, in the history of this body, and in the history of the various legislative assemblies of this country.

Mr. WM. COST JOHNSON rose to a point of order. In his opinion, it was impossible to punish the gentlemen, who were not, by the laws of the House or of the country, subject to punishment before these resolutions were introduced. He thought the resolutions were not relevant to the

the CHAIR.

Mr. W. COST JOHNSON had one word to say. These resolutions, he understood, were not the result of the deliberations of the committee; they were not reported officially as the results of that deliberation; but they came from an individual member of the committee. They were not the official acis of the organ of the House, but of one individual member of it.

The SPEAKER said that cases had ficquently occurred in which the committee reported merely facts, and in which some member moved a resolu tion connected with the subject matter of that report. For instance, in the contested election between Prentiss and Word and Claiborne and Gholsen, the committee reported only the facts; a gentleman then rose, and moved that one party of the other were not entitled to their seats. That was a resolu. tion growing out of the facts of the case.

Mr. PETRIKIN regretted his ideas of order differed from those of the CHAIR, and it was with great reluctance that he had taken the appeal. But if these resolutions of the gentleman from Ken

tucky were permitted to pass, it would be establishing a bad precedent. Here a report was made from a committe, giving the facts of a certain trans. action, and, under pretence of acting under that report, a gentleman wished to introduce resolutions of the most dangerous tendency, calculated, among other things, to destroy the right of trial by jury. He contended that the resolutions had no, relevancy or connexion, either directly or indirectly, with the report of the committee. They had no bearing whatever upon the report, and consequently the House could have no action upon them. For instance, one portion of the resolution referred to disturbances on the highway; and was that relevant to the subject of the report? Certainly not. He was therefore compelled, as a matter of duty, to make the appeal.

Mr. TILLINGHAST contended that the resolations were perfectly in order; and inasmuch as the committee had recommended no action, it was proper for any member to propose that which the committee were not instructed to do.

Mr. BRIGGS considered the resolutions as having no relation to the report of the committee. In case they should be adopted, the report would remain undisposed of untouched.

Mr. BANKS thought that the SPEAKER and the House would bear witness that. he had never risen to a question of order since he had first taken his seat on the floor, and it was with extreme regret that he ever said any thing in relation to such questions, as it was always with paistul emotions that he ever disagreed with the opinion of the presiding officer.

In the present case it was his deliberate judgment that the CHAIR was wrong in deciding this resolution, offered by the gentleman from Kentucky, to be in order. He, Mr. B. considered them as totally irrelevant to the question before the House, inasmuch as they referred only to such cases as might hereafter occur, and did not touch the present unpleasant and disagreeable affair. Besides, the resolution interfered and infringed on the stand. ing rules of the House. He perfectly agreed with the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BRIGGS] that whatever disposition we might make of these resolutions,, the report of the committee will remain untouched

As to the case of Messrs. Claiborne and Gholson, to which the gentleman from Kentucky had referred, that did not bear him out in the position he had taken; for the resolutions offered on that occasion were based on the evidence accompanying the report, and were, therefore, perfectly relevant. But, were these resolutions based upon the evidence or the facts of the report? No: they have nothing to do with the report of the committee. If the gentleman had proposed any action upon the report-if he bad proposed to censure or to expel the parties, then it would have been in order. But the resolutions did not propose to touch the matter, and referred solely to cases which might occur hereafter, and besides that, the resolution went to abrogate some of the standing resolutions of the House. He did not deny the power of the House to legislate so as to provide for the future, but he considered that the present case should be disposed of first.

Mr. UNDERWOOD was surprised at the course of gentlemen in opposing the resolutions. The committee had, in accordance with instructions, reported all the facts, and now gentlemen contended that the House must confine itself strictly to this case, and had no power to legislate for the future.

Mr. BANKS: I said no such thing. The gentleman is mistaken. I admitted that we had the right to legislate prospectively.

Mr. UNDERWOOD then went on to contend that instead of his resolutions ab.ogating any standing rule of the House, there was no rule which applied to the case. He proposed to make a new law, which should cover such cases. According to his view of the Constitution, there could be no law to define this particular offence; and the only way in which it could be reached, was by a reference to the practice of the British Parliament, and of this body in former years. He denied there was any other way by which this particular offence could be reached. What he wished to do, was to

cases.

establish a system of law, so as to apply to all such But how was the appeal sustained by the gentlemen from Virginia and Pennsylvania? Why, on the ground that the resolutions interfered and infringed on the standing rule of the House. Now the fact was, the resolutions interfered with no standing rule.

Mr. BANKS referred him to the standing rule which provides that two-thirds shall be required for the expulsion of a member, whereas one of the resolutions proposed four-fifths. Was not that an interference on one of the standing rules?

Mr. UNDERWOOD admitted that in this instance his resolutions were not in order, and he was willing to withdraw that portion.

The SPEAKER modified his decision so far as to except that portion of the resolutions, which proposed a change of the rule; the rule, as at present existing, requiring one day's notice of amendment. Mr. BANKS said as the gentleman had now changed the issue, and intended to propose some action on the report, he would no longer support the appeal.

Mr. VADERPOEL demanded the the previous question on the appeal.

Mr. BOYD moved to lay the whole subject on the table.

Mr. BRIGGS asked the yeas and nays; which were ordered, and being taken, were—yeas 83,

nays 96.

So the motion to lay the whole subject on the table was rejected.

And the question recurring on the demand for the previous question on the appeal, there was a second.

And the main question was ordered to be taken.

Mr. PROFFIT demanded the year and nays on the main quest on, which were ordere!.

On the r quisition of the CHAIR, Mr. W C JOHNSON reduced his point of order to writing; which was substantially as given above-adding thereto that the resolution proposed a change of the roles a proposition which could not be made without one day's notice.

And the main question, "Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?" was then then taken, and decided in the negativeyeas 69, nays 108.

So the decision of the Chair was reversed, and the resolutions declared to be out of order.

Mr. UNDERWOOD said that, as some gentlemen had suggested that most of the resolutions which he had offered were in order, provided they were connected with the transaction between Messrs. R. GARLAND and BYNUM, he would propose to offer the following resolution as the first of the series, and then to strike out two of the others -the one proposing a change of the rule so as to require a majority of four fifths, and the other proposing joint action on the part of the two Houses. The following resolution was then read:

Resolved, That this House ought not to take any further notice of the occurrence between Mr. RICE GARLAND and Mr. JESSE A. BYNUM, but should legislate to prevent the occurrence of such cases in future.

[Here follow the other resolutions, excepting the two numbered six and seven.]

Mr. CUSHING submited to the Chair that these resolutions were out of order.

The SPEAKER, refering to the decision just made, said in his opinion they were so.

Mr. UNDERWOOD appealed from this de

cision.

Mr. PETRIKIN submitted to the Chair that an appeal could not be taken, because the question had already been decided.

Mr. UNDERWOOD claimed the floor.

The SPEAKER said the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. UNDERWOOD] was entitled to the floor. The SPEAKER was of opinion that the proposition now offered was substantially that on which a decision had just been made; but it would be placing an arbitrary power in the hands of the SPEAKER to say that a gentleman should not appeal from his decision.

The appeal was spoken to by Mr. UNDER

WOOD. in oposition to the decision of the Chair, and by Mr. CUSHING in support of it.

After which, Mr. TAYLOR moved the previous question; on which motion there appeared-ayes 81, noes not counted.

So there was a second. And the main question was ordered to be taken.

Mr. EVERETT inquired of the Chair whether the question could not be decided so as to take the question on the first branch of the resolutions? The SPEAKER said no, not on an appeal. And the question, "Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?" was was then taken, and decided in the affirmative, without a division.

So the decision of the Chair was affirmed.

Mr. WISE said he had not risen for the purpose of submitting any proposition; but he had a remark to make, to which he asked the especial attention of honorable members. I make it (continued Mr. W.) because I consider I have more right to make it than any other member of this House. It is this: that now, after all the parade you have made upon this case of disorder, if you do not take action upon it, and exercise the power you possۤ1, you will do strong and violent injustice to both members of the House who are implicated in a charge of disorderly behavior. Flaced in the position in which they are place i now-a posi ion similar to that which I have myself been placed in heretofore, in a much more serious case, and when charges of a much more serious character were made against me, at the last Congress-sir, I can appreciate the injustice you will do these members; and I can sympathize with them, if now, after the appointment of a committee, you should decide that the whole matter shall be laid upon the tab e. I voted this morning against the motion to lay the whole subject on the table, not that I especially desired any action upon it, for I shall not sit upon the case; but because, as I have already said, if you do not take action, you will do these gentlemen injustice; you will do to one or both of them injustice similar to that violently done to me on a tormer occasion. I refer to the case of pretended privilege dragged before this House at its last long session; and I reter to it only as an argument illustrative of the injustice that may be done now. I do not wish again to call it up for discussion here. But after arraigning gentlemen for disorder or breach of privilege, without deciding who was right or who was wrong; nay, without even allowing an opportunity to discuss the question as to who was right or who was wrong; after goading gentlemen, members of this House; after stigmatizing them with breaches of privilege, and even with the commission of murder, you bury the who'e affair, not in oblivion, but in the confusion or a report. After arraigning men before the country and the world for a breach of privilege, after charging them with every high crime and misdemeanor disgraceful to human nature, the House was not even willing to take up and examine into the merits of the case, and to decide upon it. In my own case, not even down to this very hour, have I been able to get the publication of the testimony to meet the charges which have been scattered through the world against me. Are you about to do the same injustice now to these members? Day after day, in the case to which I have alluded, were gentlemen waiting anxiously for a trial-day after day were they watching, with deep solicitude, for the moment when they might appear at the bar of the House, and speak for themselves, while the press, and the public, and the world, were all speaking against them.

The SPEAKER here intimated to Mr. W. that it was not in order to discuss the merits of that

case.

Mr. WISE resumed. I am not about to do so. I have merely referred to it by way of illustration, and for the purpose of asking whether such is to be the course of proceeding in the present case.

I have one other remark to make. The precise course which my friend from Kentucky (Mr. UNDERWOOD] has proposed now, was proposed then. Instead of taking up the parties and punishing them, if they were guilty-instead of expelling them from this House-instead even of sending

was

them into the State of Maryland, if you had the power, that they might stand their trial before a jury of the country upon charges which would, if they were guilty, have sent them to the gallows, or which at least ought to have hung them if guilty, you proposed to drop the case, and to adopt ulterior, prospective legislation; and thus you stigmatized the men engaged in that transaction, without deciding upon its merits. What has been the consequence? On this point I have one word to say, and, indeed, it was my chief object in rising. After the ulterior legislation that adopted-legislation tying every man to the stake to be shot at by every body who chose to insult him in and out of his place-I call upon my fellowmembers here to bear me witness that I have, as my conduct will attest, scrupulously forborne to use offensive or personal language here. I would now, since the passage of the anti-duelling law, sooner strike a woman than I would insult a member of the House. I would do any act of meanness or of baseness rather than I would insult a man whose hands are tied. I have forborne and I intend to forbear. But I ask you, sir, I ask the members of this House, I ask the moral portion of our community, as some denominate themselves, in case I am insulted, before I fly to the sanctuary and prepare with angelic spirit to turn one cheek when the other is smitten, what am I to do? Am I to have a battle with cut-glass inkstands, or at fisticuffs, or a pulling of noses, or a scene of barsh and strong epithets? As you have tied my hands, what ought you to do for me, and for each and every member of the House? You would do exactly what I knew you would do in this case; you will take up, you will have the parade of getting up a committee to report the facts, and, after they are reported for you to act on, you will lay the whole matter on the table! In conclusion, I say and with a hope, God knows how sincerely uttered, that I may never be called upon again to interfere in such matters-either repeal your antiduelling law, or enforce your laws of order with rigidity. Beyond this I have nothing to say,

Mr. FOPE rose (he said) to make a mot.on which he hoped would meet the approbation of the House. He had paid some attention to this proceeding, and was of opinion that the occurrence to which the report of the committee referred had done rather good than harm in this body. Such an occurrence was the necessary result of the course of proceeding here during the present session. He spoke without distinction as to parties. The SPEAKER had not been able to preserve order, owing to that course of proceeding. When a Whig got up and was lashing away at a gentleman on the other side, the cry would be "go on" whenever an attempt was made to arrest him. So on the other side. When a member of the Administration party was speaking harshly of a Whig, any attempt to arrest him was voted down; and thus gentlemen were permitted to proceed pretty much in what way they pleased. This state of things could not end any otherwise than as it did. One gentleman [Mr. R. GARLAND] had made a direct apology to the House, and he hoped that such would be the case with the other gentleman, and that thus the harmony of the House might be restored without resort to further proceedings. Under these circumstances, the suggestion of his friend and colleague [Mr. UNDERWOOD] that no further action should be taken, met his (Mr. P's) approbation. The committee had been unanimous in their report of the facts, and the conduct of both parties was fully and fairly before the country. Without giving any opinion either on the one side or the other, he thought it would be better to let the subject drop, and to leave to public opinion to censure or not. The House had behaved much better since the occurrence took place, and he hoped that they would show, by their future conduct, that they regretted the course of proceeding which, as all must admit, had been tolerated too long.

After a few remarks as to the condition of the public business and the necessity for action, Mr. P. concluded by moving to lay the whole subject on the table.

Mr. BRIGGS asked the yeas and nays, which

were ordered, and, being taken, were-yeas 86, nays 93.

So the House refused to lay the subject on the table.

Mr. JENIFER offered the following resolution: Resolved, That should any member on this floor so far forget the respect he owes to his own character and duty to the House, as to use offensive language to any of his fellow-members, upon being called to order and decided to be out of order, such offending member shall be immediately calle i on 'o make a full and ample apology to the House and to the member so offended, and upon refusal be expelled from his seat in this House.

The SPEAKER decided this resolution to be out of order.

Mr. HOLMES said: Mr. Speaker, I agree most fally with the view taken by the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. WISE,] that justice demands that prompt and decisive action should be taken. Yes, sir, justice to the gentlemen concerned, but em· phatically justice to this House, and to the people of this nation, whose Representatives we are. move the resolution I hold in my hand, under the most painful emotions which I have ever experienced in any parliamentary body. But, sir, justice demands that this course should be taken, and when justice demands, sympathy must give way. Sir, I beg leave to offer the following resolution:

Resolved, That the conduct of RICE GARLAND and JESSE A. BYNUN, in fighting upon the floor of the House of Representatives during the session of Congress, was a gross violation of the dignity of the House, and calls upon the House to vindicate its dignity by an expulsion of the said RICE GARLAND and JESSE A. BYNUM.

Mr. CHINN asked for the yeas and nays: ordered.

Mr. CRAIG was not prepared, under all the circumstances of the case, to vote for this resolution. It savored rather of an ex post facto proceeding. He proposed, therefore, to amend it by striking out all after the word "Resolved," and inserting:

"That the report be recommitted to the same committee, with instructions to report what action should be had in the case; and also what measures should be adopted to prevent like occurrences in future, and to protect the members of the House from insult and violence."

Mr. PROFFIT moved the previous question, but withdrew the motion.

Mr. BRIGGS moved to amend the amendment by striking out all after the word "Resolved," and inserting the following:

"That JESSE A. BYNUM and RICE GARLAND are guilty of a breach of the privileges of this House."

Mr. BRIGGS said that the committee, in accordance with their instructions, had reported the facts of the case, and it was now for the House to say what proceeding they would take. If both gentlemen had committed a breach of privilege, the House ought to say so; and when that fact should be established, the next question was, what punishment, if any, should be inflicted. When the House came to decide upon this question, it would become them to look into the character and details of the transaction; and to see whether, if both were guilty, they were guilty alike. If not, if one was a greater offender than the other, justice and propriety required that the punishment should be different, because the same punishment should only follow the same offence. He was prepared, in view of the facts, to go at least as far as this resolution went, and to say that both members had violated the privilege of the House. And he was willing to say so by his vote.

Mr. M. A. COOPER asked Mr. HOLMES to accept the following as a modification of his resolution:

Resolved, That the whole subject be recommitted to the same committee, with instructions to report what further proceedings are necessary on the part of the House, and also the form in which said proceedings shall be had.

Mr. HOLMES declined to do so.

Mr. JENIFER expressed himself opposed to any proposition that would not bring the House to a decisive vote. He was glad that the gentleman from

South Carolina [Mr. HOLMES] had offered his proposition; and although he (Mr. J.) intended no censure on the committee, yet he thought that such a proposition should have come from them long since. If this proceeding went unrebuked, how would the House ever hereafter punish any man for a violation of its privileges? He would vote in favor of the resolution of the gentleman from South Carolina; he should do so with reluctance, still he would do it. The House owed it to its own character and to the character of the country not only to rebuke this proceeding in the strongest manner, but now to take a stand and prevent the recurrence of such scenes in future. It was with this view that he had offered the proposition which the SPEAKER had declared to be out of order. Mr. J. spoke of the calumnies and abuse which the House, by its own course, had let in upon itself. Something must be done to arrest it. He believed that any other man would have done what the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. GARLAND] had done under the circumstances, but still nothing could justify it here, and he (Mr. J.) would, reluctantly, as he had said, give his vote for expulsion, and that, too, without discrimination.

Mr. PROFFIT was astonished that the gentleman from Maryland should be capable of thinking for a moment that they ought to expel the gentleman from Louisiana, [Mr. GARLAND,] in the face of the evidence reported to the House. Neither could he vote for the expulsion of the gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. BYNUM,] because, previous to the unfortunate occurrence, the House had permitted disorderly speeches to be made, which must ever necessarily terminate in such disgraceful scenes. He did not pretend to be very orderly himself. He hoped, however, that the House would not vote for the expulsion of the parties, but in future enforce its rules of order, so that a recurrence of such events might be prevented. He considered the resolution of the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. HOLMES] as at least an imprudent act.

Mr. BRIGGS demanded the yeas and nays; which were ordered, and being taken, resulted as follows: yeas 73, nays 106.

So the House refused to lay the subject on the table.

Mr. PETRIKIN moved the indefinite postpone ment of the whole subject, because he was satisfied that if the House should determine to go into a proper investigation of the matter, it would consume several weeks, and result in no healthy action. It would then be laid on the table, or be indefinitely postponed. He contended that they should be doing the business of the country instead of wasting the time in the manner they had been doing. The seamen in the employ of the United States, were now suffering for their pay. There was no money to fit out the vessels necessary to protect our commerce on the coast of China. Every interest was being sacrificed by the course of legislation here, by wasting thetime of the people in idle discussions. It was too late now for these gentlemen to be talking about their dignity, and the dignity of the House; why did they not begin several years ago. This was not the first time that the diguity of the House had been offended against by those very men who now talk so loud abont it, and who pretend to be so anxious to defend it. He saw no good reason why these gentlemen should be made a mark to be shot at, when there were many others, who had been twenty times as guilty as they, who were permitted to es cape who had violated the rules, time after time, by using offensive language, and by refusing to vote, and thereby setting at defiance the rules of the House. Others may wish to postpone the business of the country, to amuse themselves, by try ing those gentlemen for offending against their He had no dignity; but he was opposed to it. doubt that there were many in the House, who make so much noise about the offended dignity of the House, who did more to commit violations of He it than those who said nothing about it. thought those gentlemen had been sufficiently pu nished for this rash act, which was committed in the heat of passion. There was no one who was prepared to say that the act was done intentionally,

T

14

4

There was nothing premeditated-it was the reredsult of passion. If they had commited a worse

act, without intention, we could not, as jurymen, declare them guilty to the same degree as if the act had been premeditated. It was the intention that made the crime. Would to God that this was the bat only instance of disorder and indecorum that the House had witnessed. But far worse scenes than that had transpired. Men who had been the foremost in violating the rules, by refusing to vote, and other disorder, now come forward, and affectedly claim to be the only conservators of the decorum and rules of the House. Let every member examine his own conscience, and see whether he can, consistently with his own conduct, vote to expel these gentlemen for this indiscretion

Mr. W. COST JOHNSON addressed the House at considerable length, insisting on the importance of some decided course being adopted to prevent the occurrence of such cases of violence in future." Should the House refuse to punish, its members would be abandoned to their own protection, and tempted to inflict the most violent retaliation in case of personal insult. Language that would disgrace the purlie's of Billingsgate and St. Giles had already been uttered over and over on the floor, and if these things were suffered to proceed, the House would fall into confusion and public contempt. It was no excuse to say that the conduct of these gentlemen was the result of a momentary impulse; gentlemen must learn to practise self-restraint, and, if they had injuries to punish, to reserve the settlement of such matters to a more suitable time and place. He was opposed to the postponement.

Mr. UNDERWOOD said he had voted against all propositions to postpone or to lay on the table, and his object had been to let new members see what course was to be expected here in cases like the present. He adverted to the vain attempts formerly made to punish disorders in the House, and attributed the whole difficulty to the radical error of having no rules of the House to declare what should be esteemed disorderly conduct, and how it should be punished. Mr. U. insisted that this was not a case of breach of privilege, but a case of contempt. The Constitution conferred but two privileges on members of Congress; one was, exemption from arrrest; the other was ezemption from being called on out of the House to answer for words spoken in debate.

Mr. U. quoted largely from Jefferson's Manual, commenting as he proceeded.

Mr. CUSHING suggested to him another passage in the same book, declaring quarrels in the House to be breaches of privilege.

Mr. U. denied that authority as contrary to the Cons'itution, and went on to insist that there ought to be prospective legislation by the House, specifying offences and punisments for members of Congress in the House, as laws were provided in the community for other citizens out of doors. Mr. U having made a full exposition of his views on this point, said he now washed his hands of this case: holding the principles he did, he could not vote to punish the individuals now implicated. After some brief remarks from Mr. STANLY. Mr. BANKS moved the previous question. Mr. BYNUM remonstrated, and said he should like to be heard before a final vote was taken. Mr. BANKS thereupon withdrew his motion. Mr. PETRIKIN declared himself now satisfied that his motion for indefinite postponement was not in order.

Mr. McKAY advocated a recommittal of the whole subject to the same Select Committee, to report whether the House could take any, and what, action in this case. The committee would, doubtless, have done this, but the resolution under which they were appointed did not admit of it, as it directed them simply to report the facts as they happened.

On a former occasion, he had voted to lay the whole matter on the table; but as the House had hought proper to refer it to a committee, he thought, after that, some action should be had thereon. But he was perfectly satisfied, not only from what had occurred that day, but from experience in such cases, that no good was to be allained by prolonging a discussion. It was with

that view that he had voted against motions to lay on the tab'e, in the hope that the House would become satisfied that no good could result, and coasent to a recommittal, with instructions to the committee to recommend some action on the matter. It was possible that the committee might agree with the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. UNDERWOOD,] that the offence could not be defined. But whatever might be their conclusions, it was due to the dignity and consistency House to make a final disposition of the matter, now they had gone thus far. And if the committee should report that the offence could not be punished, owing to there being no specification of it, even that would exone rate the House, and show to the country that all had been done which the nature of the case admitted. For his part, he had great confidence in the committee, and if they should come to the con clusion that the House had no authority, that would be satisfactory to the country. But by leaving the matter as it now stood, after having gone so far as to print the facts, it would be a disgrace to the House in all time to come, and establish a dangerous precedent for all future cases. He hoped no gentleman wou'd object to the recommittal, as the committee was so happily constituted, that whatever report they might make could not fail to be satisfactory to all.

Mr. RHETT replied to Mr. UNDERWOOD, insisting that, without further legislation, the House was fully empowered to punish disorderly conduct. Some acts were so manifestly di-orderly, that no doubt could be pretended in relation to them, of which fighting on the floor during the sittings of the House was certainly one. Mr. R. said there could be no law passed defining what should be deemed disorderly conduct, without the concurrence of the Senate and the President. Did the gentleman wish, then, to act on a question of the privileges of members of that House? He presumed not. He then quoted the clause of the Constitution which makes the House the sole judge in such cases, and empowers it to punish.

Mr. WISE thought all the resolutions which had been offered premature. The House must act judicially in the matter; refer it to no committee, but judge of the evidence for itself; and even this it could not lawfully do till the parties had been taken into custody, and arraigned on articles of accusation, and put upon their defence. There was not the shadow of a doubt as to the power of the House to punish; but it must be after a regular trial.

Mr. UNDERWOOD replied, and spoke in vindication of the ground he had before assumed. He quoted other passages of the Constitution in reply to Mr. RHETT, arguing that though Congress pussessed power to punish piracy, that did not prevent the necessity of its first defining" what piracy was, and passing laws for its punishment.

The doctrine of contempts was a doctrine of the common law; but in Kentucky it had been found necessary to limit and define it by s'atute, and there was the same necessity here. He scouted the idea of going into a formal trial, as proposed by Mr. WISE; it would occupy the rest of the ses. sion, and after all, would result in nothing.

Mr. CHINN now moved the previous question, which was seconded, put, and carried.

But, on Mr. ADAMS'S remonstrance, who declared he could not vote unless the parties had an opportunity to be heard,

The vote for the previous question was, on motion of Mr. ANDREWS, reconsidered-ayes 69, noes 60.

Mr. BRIGGS then proposed that the parties b now called upon to state their objections, if any they could show, to the adoption of the amend ment declaring them guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House.

Messrs. GARLAND and BYNUM declined addressing the House.

Mr. McKAY read an extract from one of the documents of the House, in which was a case in point, where the House had, in a similar case, proceeded thus far, and afterwards re-committed the whole subject to the same committee. In the present case, the committee had been unanimous in their report of the facts; and was there not good

reason to expect the same unanimity in any recommendation they might make? And if they agreed that in their opinion the House had no power to punish, that would be perfectly satisfactory, and would go out to the country, as the reason why the House had not acted on the matter.

Mr. JOHNSON of Maryland was opposed to recommitment. By referring the subject to a committee, it would be transferring the power of House to examine into the facts, to that committee. It was the duty of the members, as the judges who were to try the case, to hear and examine the facts the facts themselves. The persons accused had not been afforded an opportunity to defend themselves on this floor, the only proper place in which they should be heard. The House was the only proper place in which to interrogate witnesses. They were the triers, and should hear all the testimony. If he should ever be so unfortunate as to be involved in a difficulty with a fellow member, he would never consent to be tried in the damp dungeons of the Capitol by any committee, but claim to be heard before the jury which was to decide on his case-the House. Mr. J. went into an argument to show why questions of privilege should be tried in the House alone. He was opposed, on principle, to referring the character and standing of members to a committee; because the committee might be so constructed by a partisan Speaker as not to afford an impartial examination into the facts. It would, in effect, be giving the whole power of the House to try, into the hands of the Speaker, operating through his committee. After showing the necessity of action on the subject, he said if the House declined to give any action, the whole subject had better be laid on the table; but if it felt disposed to check indiscretion and disorder, now was the time to do it.

Mr. TILLINGHAST read the following, which he thought would be proper as a preliminary resolution, to precede the amendment proposed by Mr. BRIGGS:

"Whereas the committee appointed to report the facts of the case of violence that occurred in this House between Messrs. RICE GARLAND and JESSE A. BYNUM; have made their report, and this House is now about to take order thereon:

"Resolved, That Mr. SPEAKER call on the said RICE GARLAND and JESSE A. BYNUM now to show cause, if any they or either of them have, why the House should not now proceed to act and adjudg upon the facts as set forth in said report, and that they now have an opportunity to be heard in respect to the facts so reported, and in respect to the action and judgment of the House thereon."

The CHAIR ruled this resolution not to be in order at present.

Mr. BRIGGS then went into a recapitulation of the successive steps which had thus far been taken; and insisted that the parties had had the fullest opportunity before the committee of adducing their witnesses and cross-examining them, and of making their own statements at large. Since then, they had had an opportunity afforded them in the House, and had declined availing themselves of

it.

What was now in the way to prevent the House from proceeding to act on the report of the committee? As to what Mr. PETRIKIN had said about former disorders, one evil did not excuse another; and the frequent recurrence of such cases did but the more clearly show the necessity of some decided action on the part of the House to prevent them in future.

Mr. EVERETT made some remarks scarce heard at all by the Reporter, but which were understood to deprecate the parties being judged without a hearing before the House, and such proceedings as might appear on its records as a judicial transaction. He thought the accusation ought to be brought to a point, and presented in an explicit form. And he proposed a resolution going to recommit the subject, with instructions to the committee to report what course ought to be taken, and what should be the mode of proceeding.

The CHAIR ruled the amendment not to be in order, it being, in substance, the same with one already offered by Mr. CRAIG.

Mr. RHETT, in reply to the arguments of Mr. WISE, that the member should be arrested by the

Sergeant-at-arms, and arraigned at the bar of the House, denied that it was at all necessary. The object of ariest was to bring before the House such persons as were not in the House, but the member was in the House, and had a right to defend himself, and be heard, if he thought proper to do so, without any formal motion to that effect; and no member had a right to call him to order, if he were to rise to address the House. He defied the gentleman to produce one instance in parlia mentary history, where a member was arrested, and arraigned, under the circumstances, as was contended for by the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Wis]

Mr. WELLER moved the previous question, but withdrew it at the request of Mr. CRAIG, who wishe i to change the relative order between his own amendment and that offered afterwards by Mr. BRIGGS: he wished Mr. BRIGGS's to go first, and his own to follow. He according y withdrew his own amendment, and then offered it as an amendment to the amendment of Mr. BRIGGS.

The question being about to be taken,

Mr. TURNEY moved to lay the whole subject on the table.

The yeas and nays were demanded by Mr. BRIGGS; and being taken, resvited as follows: yeas 63, nays 95.

So the House refused to lay the subject on the table.

Mr. WELLER renewed his call for the previous question; but said he would withdraw it, if either of the gentlemen wished to address the House. It was seconded, put, and carried.

Mr. COOPER of Georgia offered the following resolution, and expressed a wish that Mr. CRAIG would accept it; which was read as follows:

Resolved, That the whole subject be recommitted to the Select Communee, with instruc ions to report what further proceedings are necessary on the part of th: House; and also the form in which the said proceedings shall be had.

Mr. CRAIG accepted it as a modification; and the question being on its adoption,

Mr. PETRIKIN demanded the yeas and nays; which having been ordered, were-yeas 106, nays

57.

So the whole subject was recommitted.

Mr. ANDREWS moved that the House adjourn.

Mr. PARRIS demanded the yeas and nays; which having been ordered, were-yeas 83, has

79

The House accordingly adjourned.

IN SENATE,

FRIDAY, My 15, 1819.

Mr. BUCHANAN presented the memorial of the Chamber of Commerce of the city of Pailadelphia, praying for the con Gruction of a harbor in the river Delaware, and the erection of a light-house on Brandywine Shoals.

Also, a memorial from the same, praying for the establishment of bays in the river Daware and by;

both of which were reittied to the Committee on Commerce. Aleo, a memorial from a aminber of citizens of Philadelphia, praying for the erection of a new custom house: referred to The Committee on Commerce.

Also, the me neriai of Cach arine Rinker, praying for a peusing. Teterred to the Committee on Pensions.

Also, the memorial of a number of citizens of Philadelphia, praying an appropriation for the completion of the light-house on Brandy wille Shoals: referred to the Committee on Com

merce.

after some remarks from Messrs STRANGE and CALHOUN, was recommitted the Committee on the Judiciary.

The bill to create an additional land office in the State of Michigan having been read a third time, and the question being on its passage,

Mr. PORTER objected to the bill, on the ground that there were no white settlers in the new district proposed to be esta blished, and none likely to go there for some time to come. He saw no necessity for another land district in Mi higan. A sufficient number were established in that State already. He did not think it probable that any lands would be purchased in the proposed district for some years, nor that any settlements of white people would be made in it for a long time. He had been informed by a member of the Senate of Michigan [the Reporter understood him to say Mr. Bridge] that an additional land office was unnecessary in that country; and he had derived other facts which led him to his conclusions, from Mr. Robert Stewart, now in this city. In the course of its remarks, be also stated that there were no organized counties, nor any other counties with any other than imaginary lines, within the proposed new district.

Mr. NORVELL said, that the bill now before the Senate, which had yesterday been ordered to a third reading, proposcu to divide the Grand River land district into two districts, and to establish a new one, to be calle I the Grand Traverse District, in a portion of the north in section of Michigan. Since the lato surveys were made in the Grand River district, it had been ascertained that it contained about ten millions of acres of land actually surveyed, and nearly or quite ready to be brought into market, besides about one million remaining to be surveyed. The existing district, as proposed to be limited by the bill, contained upwards of five millions of unsold lands, and the new district about the same quantity. Each of these districts was, as he understood, larger than almost any other land district in the United States. The bill had mot the approbation of the Committee on Public Lands in the Senate, the committe in the other Houso, and the Commissioner of the General Land Office. It contained other provisions besides those to which he had adverted. It annexet, for the present, all the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, with the islands in Lake Huron, and it waters, lying within the limits of the Suite, to the Detroit land district. And it authorized the President to change the location of cer.ain of the land offices, whenever, in his judgment, the public interests required it. He was really at a loss to understand the motive or the object of his colleague, in the opposition which he had just disclosed to the bill. It was the first time that he had ever heard it alleged as an objection to the establishment of a land district and a land office, that the white settlements in the district were small, or that there were none in it. He had supposed that the object of establishing such districts and offices was to attract settlers-to enable them to make their selections, and enter their lands with convenience, and thus to accelerate the settlement of the country. For himself, he would say that he should never be the man who would resist any measure calculated to facili tate and hasten the set lement, cultivation, and population of his own State. That was a policy which he could never reconcile to his feelings, or to his sense of duty to the State which had conferred upon him the honor which he enjoyed of represenung her in the councils of the nation.

But, in point of fact, he had understood from the Representa tive of Michigan in the other House, who resided in the western section of the State, that a white settlement commenced two years ago, and was going on within the proposed new land district, on the Munistee river. Valuable Inds were found in that district. They were desumed to an early occupation and settlement. The country would probably fill up rapidly. When the first land office was exablished in Michigan, the whole pe ninsula, containing more on twenty-five millions of acres, had not five thousand white inbabrants within its limits. The western section had not been ecca, ied by a single white man. I regard to the counties alluded to, he has never before heard of a county in Michigan bounded by imaginary lines. There was no such thing. Every county was distinctly described, and its boundarie laid down in the law. He had learned that the whole country in question had been laid off into counties at the late session of the Legislature of the State. Counties in that State were at first organized for individual purposes, and annexed to other counties for political purposes. When they attained a particular and designated amount of population, they were fully organized for all purposes. But every county had, from the beginning, not its imaginary, but its specific boundaries. In relation to the number of land districts in Michigan, there were at this time but five, when she had upwards of twenty millions of acres of unsold public lands lying within her limits. Other States had a much greater comparative number of land offices. Ilinois had ter, with only about eighteen millious of acres of unsold lands. By a bill which had passed the Senate, one of the land districts in Michigan would be abolished at once, because it contained but a few thousand acres of land remaining to be sold. Another of them, by the progress of sales, would, under the operation of that bill, be abolished in a year or two. He hoped that the bill now before the Senate would pass, without further opposition.

Mr. WALKER submitted his views in favor of the bill. He said that the Committee on the Public Lands had always acted with caution in the creation of new land districts; and they had carefully ascertained the necessity of establishing the one in Michigan, embraced by the bill, before they hal determined to report it. Upwards of five millions of acres of land were included in the new district, and a larger quantity in the old dis fict from which the now one was taken. This was a larger district than perhaps any other in the United States. As to settlers in the new district, it was not material whether there were few or many. Four districts had been established in Mississippi, with very few settlers in any of them. They were established before the lands were ready to be brought into market. The bill which passed this body some time ago, abo. lished nine or ten land districts,and at least one ia Michigan. No increase of districts would be made by this bill. Mr. CLAY of Kentucky opposed the bill, and Mr. CLAY of Alabama supported it.

Mr. KING suggested an amendment, withholding compensation from the Register and Receiver until they entered on the discharge of their duties.

Mr. NORVELL presented such an amendment; which was unanimously agreed to.

The question was then taken, and the bill passed-ayes 22, nocs 12, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Allen, Anderson, Benton, Brown, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay of Alabama, Cuthbert, Grundy, Hubbard, King,

Mouton, Nicholas, Norvell, Robinson, Strange, Sturgeon, Tap. pan, Walker, Wall, Wright, and Young-22.

NAYS-Messrs. Clay of K ntucky, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Dixon, Lumpkin, Merrick, Porter, Prentise, Ruggles, Tallmadge, and White-12.

The bills ordered to be engrossed yesterday were severally read a third time, and passed.

The bill for the relief of Thomas L. Winthrop and others, directors of an association called "The New England Mississip pi Land Company," was taken up, and after some remarks by Messrs. STRANGE and CALHOUN, was, on motion of Mr. HUBBARD, recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary. The bill for the relief of the legal representatives of Francia Cazeau, was considered in committee of the whole, and or dered to be engrossed.

SYSTEM OF BANKRUPTCY.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill to estab lish a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States; and the question was still on Mr. WALL's substitute for the bill.

Mr. SMITH of Indiana argued at large on most of the great and important topics already mentioned as belonging to the subject. He examined and discussed the peculiar principles and provisions of the substitue, opposing it, and repudiating them as wrong and inexpedient, and advocating, with much zeal and earnestness, the original bill from the committee.

Mr. WEBSTER having intimated his desire to address the Senate on this subject

On motion of Mr. HUBBARD, it was postponed to Monday

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
FRIDAY, May 15, 1840.

Mr. CAMPBELL of South Carolina asked leave to refer a petition, on a subject already before the House, to the appropriate committee.

Mr. REYNOLDS also asked leave to refer a petition to the Committee on Revolutionary Claims.

Objection being made, leave was not granted. Mr. CAMPBELL asked if it would be in order to devote the morning hour to the reception of petitions.

The SPEAKER replied that it could be done only by the consent of two-thirds.

The SPEAKER then laid before the House the following communications:

1. Letter from the Secretary of War, transmit. ting the information required by the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 23d of March last, respecting the progress which has been made in effecting a treaty with the Wyandott Indians for the purchase of their lands in Crawford county, Ohio.

On motion of Mr. L. WILLIAMS, referred to the Commitice on Indian Affairs, and ordered to be printed.

2. Letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting, in compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 9th ultimo, a system of national defence and the establishment of a National Foundry.

On motion of Mr. WISE, so much as relates to a national foundry was referred to the Select Com mittee on the subject.

On motion of Mr. W. THOMPSON, the report and accompanying documents were referred to the Committee on Military Affairs, and 2,000 extra copies ordered to be printed.

Mr. C. H. WILLIAMS offered the following resolutian:

Resolved, That the first Wednesday in June next be set apart by the House to the exclusion of all other business, for the bills, resolutions, &c. reported by the Committee for the District of Columbia to be acted upon.

Mr. PETRIKIN objected.

Mr. WILLIAMS then moved a suspension of the rules, and called for the yeas and nays; which were ordered, and were-yeas 73, nays 81.

So the rules were not suspended.

Mr. BANKS asked the favor of the House to take up two short bills; which, he said, could be passed in two minutes.

Objections being made,

Mr. B. withdrew his request.

PUBLIC PRINTING.

The unfinished business being the report of the Select Committee on the Public Printing, and the pending question from Wednesday last being on a motion for the previous question on an amendment offered by Mr. PETRIKIN, of Pennsylvania, to