&

land office, by way of pre-emption, at $2 50 per

acre.

These amendments were received and subsequently ordered, with the bill, to be printed.

Mr. COST JOHNSON wished to have a distinct understanding on the disposal of this bill.

The SPEAKER repeated that it was now laid over until Tuesday, on which day it would be first in order; the question being on the amendment. Mr. JOHNSON said, as that was the case, he would ask leave to offer the following resolution, which was read for information, viz:

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Navy be requested to furnish a statement of the cost of building, equipping, and repairing, the public vessels of the United States, from the nrst day of January, 1830, to the present time, the cost of each vessel under the above mentioned several heads to be distinctly and separately set forth, and the time designated when the same was built, equipped, or repaired.

Objection being made,

Mr. JOHNSON moved a suspension of the rules, which motion was rejected. So the resolution was not received.

Mr. REED, on leave, presented sundry memorials, which were referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

On motion of Mr. ATHERTON, the House proceeded to the orders of the day, and resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. BRIGGS in the chair, on the private bills on the calendar.

The bill under consideration, when the committee last rose, was a bill for the relief of Benjamin Adams and others.

Mr. PETRIKIN had moved to strike out the enacting cause. In supporting that motion he used the following language, for which was decided out of order by the CHAIR as irrelavant, viz:

"Mr. PETRIKIN was proceeding to quote in a general way what had formerly been said on the Acor of the House, relative to the waste and extravagance of the Democratic party, and the present Administration, and that when the Whigs were told they had voted for the bills granting the sums complained of as extravagant, they replied that the Democrats had the majority, and vught to have prevented the passage of all improper laws. 'Pass these bills,' said he, 'voting away millions of money, and we will be again told the Democracy had the majority in the House of Representatives, why did they pass such bills?'

"Mr. PETRIKIN appealed from the decision of the CHAIR, and on a division by telters on sustaining the decision, it was discovered there was no quorum. Whereupon the committe rose, and the House adjourned."

The question now pending being on the appeal, The CHAIR restated in substance the reasons for which he had called the gentleman from Pennsylvania to order. He did not consider the remarks of the gentleman in relation to charges of Extravagance, etc. as at all pertinent to the subject then before the committee, which was a private bill. If the gentleman had been suffered to go on, then these who might consider themselves implicated by the charges, would claim a right to reply; and thus a debate would arise on a subject different to that before them, and the discussion would be on the prodigality of the Administration, instead of the present bill.

Some conversation of a desultory character ensued, in which Mr. PETRIKIN, in answer to a question, said he had mentioned no gentleman's name in his remarks, but had merely referred, in a general way, to what had been said, etc.

The question "Shall the decision of the CHAIR stand?" was then taken by tellers, and resultedayes 34, nces 80-no quorum voting.

Some conversation ensuing, to the effect that there was evidently a quorum in the hall,

The CHAIR said he was willing to consider his decision a reversed.

So Mr. PETRIKIN was in order.

The bill, by general consent, was then laid aside for future action.

The comm tee then acted on several other bills until the hour arrived for taking the usual recess.

EVENING SESSION.

The bills reported from the Committee of the Whole in the morning session, were respectively disposed of as indicated below.

The bill for the relief of the assignees of Low, Taylor and Co. was postponed till Friday next. The following bills from the Senate having been engrossed, were read the third time and passed: An act for the relief of John H. Sheppard, admi. nistrator of Abiel Wood;

An act for the relief of A. G. S. Wright;

An act to confirm the title to a certain tract of land in the county of Mobile, in Alabama; and An act for the relief of Joseph Cochran.

Bills of the House of the following titles having been engrossed according to order, were espectively read the third time and passed, viz:

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

A bill for the relief of Saunders and Porter, sureties of Estes;

A bill to authorize the payment of the seven years' half pay, due on account of the death of Captain William Gregory, to the person or persons entitled to the same;

A bill to authorize the payment of seven years' hall pay of a lieutenant, due on account of the death of Lieutenant Jonathan Die, who was killed in the battle of Brandywine;

A bill for the relief of Oliver Welsh;

A bill confirming the claim of Augustin Lacoste to a certain tract of land therein named;

A bill for the relief of Pierre Molaison, the widow of Pierre Richoux, Alex. Comeau, Alice L Foley, widow of John Foley, and Francis Martin; A bill for the relief of Chilton Allan;

A bill for the relief of certain settlers on the saltlick reservation in the western district of Tennessee;

Á bill for the relief of William Marbury, of Louisiana;

A bill for the relief of Mary Perfect;

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

A bill for the relief of General Duncan L. Clinch;

A bill for the relief of the sureties of, and heirs and representatives of Melancton Bostwick, deceased;

A bill for the relief of John H. Genther;

A bill for the relief of E izabeth Davidson;
A bill for the relief of the representatives of
William Lomax;

A bill for the relief of Jacob Bocker;
A bill for the relief of Jabez Collins;
A bill for the relief of Phebe Deckinan;
A bill for the relief of James Phelps;
A bill granting a pension to Catharine Allen;
A bill for the relief of John England;
A bill for the relief of James Deatley;
A bill for the relief of Hugh Davis;
A bill granting a pension to Chauncy Rice.

House bill to refund a fine imposed on Matthew Lyon, under the sedition law, to his heirs and legal representatives, having been reported from the Committee of the Whole without amendment; On motion of Mr. RUSSELL its further consideration was postponed till Friday next.

Mr. REYNOLDS subsequently moved to reconsider the vote on the postponement, and some discussion arose on the motion: the further consideration of the subject lies over under the rule.

The following bills were reported from the Com. mittee without amendineut, and having been ordered to be engrossed, were postponed for further consideration ull to-morrow, viz:

A bill for the relief of Joseph Wallace and the heirs and representatives of Robert Leckie and Jerem ah D. Hayden, deceased;

A bill for the relief of Benjamin Fry; and A bill for the relief of Gen. Danl. Parker. The bil for the relief of Alexander Everett, which was amended in Commitee of the Whole on the motion of Mr. PETRIKIN, was taken up in the House, and the said amendment having been concurred in, and the bill, according to order, having been engrossed, was read the third time, and passed.

The bill for the relief of Hyacinth Lassell,

which was amended in the Committee of the Whole on the motion of Mr. PETRIKIN, so as to restrict the grant of land to such as was subject to private entry, was taken up in the House, the amendment was concurred in, and the bill was ordered to be engrossed.

Mr. CUSHING, who voted to concur in the amendment of the committee, moved to reconsider that vote; which motion

Mr. WICK was proceeding to support in some remarks; consequently the bill, under the rule, was laid over for future consideration.

On motion of Mr. RUSSELL, the House again went into Committee of the Whole (Mr. BRIGGS in the chair;) and the committee having considered many bills, and passed others,

On motion of Mr. HOPKINS, the committee rose and reported the following to the House, without amendment: [For which see next column.]

Mr. TURNEY moved to reconsider the vole by which the House refused to second the call for the previous question on the pre-emption bill during the morning session.

The CHAIR suggested that such a motion would not be in order.

Mr. CASEY argued that, before such a motion could possibly be in order, the House would first have to reconsider to vote subsequently taken refusing to commit the bill; and

After a few remarks by Messrs. R. GARLAND, TURNEY, CASEY, and BRIGGS,

The SPEAKER said, the gentleman cou'd accomplish his motion, if it was his wish to take the bill out of its present position before the House, and to delay action upon it, to move to reconsider the motion refusing to commit the bill, and then move to postpone the bill to some future time.

Mr. TURNEY then made a motion to reconsider the vote refusing to commit the bill; which was entered.

On motion of Mr. HOPKINS,
The House then adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SATURDAY, May 23, 1840.

After the reading of the Journal,

The SPEAKER suggested to the House the propriety of dispensing with the business of the morning hour, for the purpose of disposing of all the business on the SPEAKER'S table. It would prevent much inconvenience to the SPEAKER; to which suggestion the House assented.

Mr. UNDERWOOD asked the House to excuse him from further service on the Committee of Privileges, growing out of the difficulty between Messrs. R. GARLAND and BYNUM; which request the House, however, refused..

Mr. LINCOLN, from the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, by general consent, reported back to the House Senate bill in relation to the statue of Washington, by Greenough, with an amendment, substituting the words "Secretary of the Navy" for the words "Committee on the Library;" which amendment was concurred in, and the bill was read the third time and passed.

The SPEAKER announced that the next business in order was the motion of Mr. CUSHING to reconsider the vote on yesterday, by which the House concurred in the amendment of the Committee of the Whole, to the bill for the relief of Hyacinth Lassell, and subjecting the grant of land in said bill to be located on such of the public land as was subject to private entry.

Mr. WICK went into a history of the claim, and advocated the motion for reconsideration.

Mr. PETRIKIN was opposed to the motion to reconsider, and spoke in support of his amendment, which was adopted by the Committee of the Whole. He doubted whether the claimant should have any land at all, instead of granting him a float to locate the best lands in small parcels at different points.

Mr. WICK had no objection to confine the float so as to have all the land located in one body. The question was then taken on the motion to reconsider, and disagreed to.

The bill now stands on its engrossment. The next before the House was the motion to reconsider the vote postponing till Friday next the

the claim by Mr. TURNEY, from the Committee on the Judiciary. The committee adopted the report made by the same committee in 1832; which was read to the House, as will be found below. [That the country may unders' and the merits of the case, and may trace a history of the circumstances under which the fine was imposed upon Matthew Lyon; and that the history of those times, and the parties of those days may not be forgotten, the Reporter inserts the report at large.]

The Committee on the Judiciary to whom was referred the petition of Chittenden Lyon and Matthew Lyon, heirs and representatives of the late Matthew Lyon, deceased, report:

That in the month of October, 1798, the late Matthew Lyon, the father of the petitioners, at the circuit court held at Rutland, in the State of Vermont, was indicted and found guilty of hav. ing printed and published what was alleged to be a libel against Mr. John Adams, the then President of the United States. The alleged libel was in the following words, to wit: "As to the Executive, when I shall see the effects of that power bent on the promotion of the comfort, the happiness, and accommodation of the people, that Executive shall have my zealous and uniform support. But whenever I shall, on the part of our Executive, see every consideration of public welfare swallowed up in a continual grasp for power, in an unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and selfish avarice when I shall behold men of real merit daily turned out office for no other cause than indepen. dency of sentiment-when I shall see men of firmness, merit, years, abilities, and experience, discarded in their appli cations for office, for fear they possess that independence, and men of meanness preferred for the ease with which they can take up and advocate opinions, the consequence of which they know but little of-when I shall see the sacred name of religion employed as a State engine to make mankind hate and persocute each other, I shall not be their humble advocate!" The second count in the indictment, on which the said Matthew Ly. on was convicted, charged him with printing and publishing a seditious writing or libel, entitled "Copy of a letter from an American diplomatic character in France (Mr. Joel Barlow) to a member of Congress in Philadelphia," which was in the following words, to wit: "The misunderstanding between the two Governments has become extremely alarming; confidence is completely destroyed; mistrusts, jealousies, and a disposition to a wrong attribution of motives, are so apparent as to require the utmost caution in every word and action that are to come from your Executive-I mean if your object is to avoid hostilities. Had this truth been understood with you before the recall of Monroe-before the coming and second coming of Pinckney; had it guided the pens that wrote the bullying speech of your President, and stupid answer of your Senate, at the opening of Congress in November last, I should probably have had no occasion to address you this

letter.

But when we found him borrowing the language of Edmund Burke, and telling the world that, al though he should succeed in treating with the French, there was no dependence to be placed in any of their engagements, that their religion and morality were at an end, and they had turned pirates and plunderers, and that it would be necessary to be perpetually armed against them, though you are at peace; we wondered that the answer of both Houses had not been an order to send him to the mad-house. Instead of this, the Senate have echoed the speech with more servility than ever George the Third experienced from either House of Parliament."

The court deemed both the publications above recited libel. lous, under the second section of the act commonly called the sedition law, passed the 4th July, 1793; which section is as follows, viz: "And be it further enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter, or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered, or published, or shall knowingly and wilfully assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering, or pub. lishing, any false, scandalous, and malicious writing or writings against the Government of the United States, or either House of the Congress of the United States, or of the President of the United States, with an intent to defame the said Government, or either House of the said Congress, or the President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrespect, or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, &c. then such person, be ing thereof convicted before any court of the United States hav ing jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceed. ing two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years."

Upon this indictment Matthew Lyon was convicted, and sentenced by the court to be imprisoned for four months;to pay a fine of one thousand dollars, and the costs of the prosecution, taxed at sixty dollars and ninety-six cents; and to stand committed until the fine and costs were paid: which were paid, as appears by the exemplification of the record of the said trial and proceedings, now in the archives of this House.

The commttee are of opinion that the law above recited was unconstitutional, null, and void, passed under a mistaken exercise of undelegated power, and that the mistake ought to be corrected by returning the fine so obtained, with interest therein, to the legal representatives of Matthew Lyon.

The commit ee do not deem it necessary to discuss at length the character of that law, or to assign all the reasons, however demonstrative, that have induced the conviction of its unconstitutionality. No question connected with the liberty of the press ever excited a more universal and intense interest--ever received so acute, able, long-continued, and elaborate investigation was ever more generally understood, or so conclusively settled by the concurring opinions of all parties, after the heted political contests of the day had passed away. All that now remains to be done by the Representatives of the people who condemned this act of their agents as unauthorized, and transcending their grant of power, to place beyond question, doubt, o cavil, that mandate of the, Constitution prohibiting Congress from abrizing the liberty of the press, and to discharge an honest, just, moral, and honorab'e obligation, is to refund frou, the Treasury the fine thus illegally and wrongfully obtained from one of their citizens: for which purpose the com mittee herewith report a b'li.

Mr. TILLINGHAST again adverted to the length of time which had elapsed since the claim

was first presented. A whole generation had passed away since the claim was alleged to have originated, and it was now impossible to ascertain the true state of the facts, with any thing like satis faction. He therefore insisted on his motion to lay on the table.

On this motion, Mr. HAND demanded the yeas and nays.

Mr. TILLINGHAST withdrew his motion to lay on the table.

Mr. TURNEY moved the previous question on the bill, which was seconded, and the main question ordered to be put, on which Mr. T. demanded the yeas and nays.

And the quastion being first on the amendment, Mr. TILLINGHAST renewed his motion to lay on the table.

On this motion, Mr. TURNEY demanded the yeas and nays; which, being ordered, resulted as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Briggs, Cranston, Davies, Evans, Giddings, Grinnell, Hall, Ilawes, Hunt, Lincoln, Russell, Storrs, Tillinghast, Trumbull, and Lewis Williams-17.

NAYS-Messrs. John W. Allen, Hugh J. Anderson, Andrews, Banks, Beatty, Bell, Bond, Boyd, Albert G. Brown, Burke, William O. Butler. Bynum, Calhoun, William B. Campbell, Carr, Casey, Chapman, Chinn, Clark, Clifford, Coles, Connor, William R. Cooper, Crabb, Craig, Crary, Crockett, Cross, Curtis, Dana, John Davis, Garret Davis, Dawson, Deberry, Dickerson, Dellet, Doan, Doig, Duncan, Earl, Eastman, Ely, Fine, Fletcher, Floyd, Fornance, James Garland, Rice Garland, Gentry, Gerry, Goggin, Goode, Griffin, Hammond, Hand, Hawkins, Henry, Hill of Virginia, Hill of North Carolina, Holleman, Hopkins, Howard, Hubbard, Jackson, James, Jameson, Jenifer. Charles Johnston, Cave Johnson, Nathaniel Jones, Kempshall. Kille, Leadbetter, Leonard, Lewis, Lowell, McClellan, McKay, Mallory, Mar. chand, Mason, Miller, Monroe, Montanya, Morgan, Calvary Morris, Newhard, Ogle, Osborne, Parrish, Parmenter, Paynter, Petrikin, Pope, Prentiss, Ramsey, Rariden, Reynolds, Rhett, Ridgway, Edward Rogers, Samuels, Shaw, Simonton, Albert Smith, John Smith, Stanly, Starkweather, Steenrod, Strong, Stuart, Sumter, Sweney, Taylor, Francis Thomas, Waddy Thompson, Jacob Thompson, Toland, Triplett, Turney, Underwood, David D. Wagener, Warren, Watterson. Weller, Edward D. White, Wick, Jared W. Williams, and Henry Williams-129.

So the House refused to lay on the table.

And the question then recurred on the first part of the main question-being on the amendment to strike out the words "legal heirs," and insert the words "personal representatives."

Mr. TURNEY demanded the yeas and nays; which having been ordered, were-yeas 44, nays 94, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. John W. Allen, Bell, Boad, Brockway, S. H. Butler, Calhoun, Wm. B. Campbell, Carter, Clark, Crabb, Cranston, Curtis, Edward Davies, Evans, James Garland, Rice Garland, Giddings, Goggin, Greeo, Hall, John Hill of Virginia, Hunt, James, Charles Johnston, Kempshall, McKay, Mason, Ogle, Osborne, Randolph, Ridgway, Russell, Samuels, Simon ton, Slade, Storrs, Taliaferro. Waddy Thompson, Toland, Triplett, Underwood, Warren, Edward D. White, and Lewis Williams-44.

NAYS-Messrs. Hugh J. Anderson, Banks, Beatty, Boyd, Brewster, Burke, Wm. O. Butler, Bynum, Carr, Casey, Chap. man, Chian, Clifford, Coles, Connor, Wm. R. Cooper, Crary, Crockett, Dana, Davee, John Davis, Dawson, Deberry, Doan, Doig, Earl, Eastman, Edwards, Ely, Fine, Floyd, Fornance, Gerry, Goode, Griffin, Hammond, Hand, Hawkins, Henry, John Hill of North Carolina, Hillen, Hoffman, Holleman, Hopkins, Howard, Hubbard, Jackson, Jameson, Cave Johnson, Nathaniel Jones. Kille, Leadbetter, Leonard, Lewis, McClellan, McCulloch, Mallory, Merchand, Miller, Montanya, Morgan. Calvary Morris, Newhard, Parrish, Pa menter, Paynter, Petrikin, Pren tiss, Ramsey, Reynolds, Rhett, Edward Rogers, Shaw, Shepard, Albert Sinith, John Smith, Thomas mith, Stanly, Stark weather, Steenrod, Strong, Sumter, Swearingen, Sweney, Taylor, Francis Thomas, Jacob Thompson, Turney, David D. Wagener, Watterson, Weller, Wisk, Jared W. Williams, and Henry Williams-91.

The question then being on ordering the bill to be engrossed for its third reading, it was taken by yeas and nays, as follows:

YEAS-Messis. J. W. Allen, Hugh J. Anderson, Andrews, Banks, Beatty, Beirne, Bell, Boyd, Albert G. Brown, Burke, Samoson H. Butler, William O. Butler, Bynum, Calhoun, W. B. Campbell, Carr, Carter, Casey, Chapman, Chinn, Clark, Clifford, Coles, Connor, William R. Cooper, Crabb, Crary, Crockett, Cross, Dana. Divee, John Davis, Dickerson, Dellett, Doan, Doig, Duncan, Earl, Eastman, Ely, Fine, Fletcher, Floyd, Fornance, James Garland, Rice Garland, Gerry, Goggin, Goode, Green, Griffin, Hammond, Hand, Hawkins, Henry, Hill of Virginia, Hill of North Carolina, Holleman, Holmes, Hopkins, Howard, Hubbard, Jackson. James, Jameson, Charles Johnston, Nathaniel Jones, Kemble, Kempshall, Kille, Leadbetter, Leonard, Lewis, Lowell, McClellan, McCulloch, Mallory, Marchand, Mason, Miller, Montanya, S. W. Morris, Newhard. Ogle, Osborne, Parish, Parmenter, Petrikin, Pope, Prentiss, Ramsey, Reynolds, Rhett, Ridgway, Edward Rogers, Samuels, Shaw, Albert Smith, John Smith, Thomas Smith, Starkweather, Steenrod, Strong, Stuart, Sumter, Swearingen, Sweney, Taylor, Francis Thomas, Waddy Thompson, Jacob Thompson, Triplett Turney, Underwood, David D. Wagener, Warren, Watterson, Weller, John White, Wick, Jared W. Williams, and Henry Williams-120.

NAYS-Messrs. Bond, Briggs, Cranston, Curtis, Davies, Deberry, Evans, Grinnell, Habersharh, Hawes Ogden Hoffman, Jenifer, Lincoln, McKay, Morgan, Rayner, Russell, Stanly,

Storrs, Taliaferro, Tillinghast, Trumbull, and Joseph L. Williams-20.

So the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

Mr. RUSSELL then moved to postpone the further consideration of the bill until Friday next. He alluded to the great length of time which had elapsed since the da'e of the claim, say 1793; and considering that, asked what gentleman there was who would undertake to say that we could have any thing like a correct knowledge of the occurrences of that time. Generations had passed away, and now, when after the lapse of so many years, we were called, upon to act upon the claim, was it not proper that we should obtain as correct information as possible? What was the information which the House had before it, and on which it was asked to grant this claim? Why, we were obliged to rely on the frail memory of man for the evidence in relation to it. But were there no other sources from which better information could be obtained? Certainly there was. By a reference to the papers at the Treasury Department, it could be ascertained whether Government ever received this money or not. He wished to cast no in.putation on the gentlemen who supported the bill; but if it should, upon investigation, turn out that this money had never been realized by Government, who was there, he would ask, who would vote for such a claim? What gentleman would, under such circumstances, vote for the passage of the bill? He was sure there Vote, was not a single man who would give his if it could be shown that the money had never been received by the Government. Now his information was, and he believed it to be correct, that the money never had been paid into the Treasury, and that not a single dollor had ever been received by Government. He believed the facts in the report, in relation to the conviction and imprisonment of Matthew Lyon, were true; and, also, that the amount of the fine was raised by his political friends, and the money was deposited with the marshal, in whose custody he was. But, on Mr. Jefferson's coming into power, and before the money was paid into the Treasury, he believed the fine was remitted, and returned to the source from whence it came. Now what he wanted was, proper time to examine into the real state of the facts, and it was for this reason he wished the further consideration of the bill postponed until Friday

next.

Mr. BUTLER of Kentucky wished to make a few brief remarks in relation to the merits of this bill. It had been said that, in all probability, the money had never been received by the Government, and that it had been returned. That, he believed, was not the state of the case. It was not true that the bill had ever been rejected. On the contrary, it had been reported by committees from year to year, all of which reports were in favor of the claim.

But there was one fact which would serve to show on what erroneous grounds gentlemen would sometimes base their arguments against bills of this character. The gentleman had said that the fine was remitted when Mr. Jefferson came into power, whereas the money was paid when Lyon was in jail, in 1799, nearly three years before; and could it be presumed that the marshal kept the money in his hands all that time? If the gentleman had been so informed, he was very much mistaken. He was sure that no evidence cou'd be brought to show that the fine had been remitted; and on the other side, there was abundant testimony to show that it had been paid, no matter whether by Lyon himself or by his friends. He appealed to the House whether it was not a disgrace to the country that a claim of this character had remained unpaid for the lapse of so many years. But he saw the object of the gentleman in wishing to postpone it. His object was to kill it by time, in which way it had been the practice to kill other bills, when no good reason could be assigned against their passage. He repeated, that there was abundant testimony to show that the fine had been paid. but there was no evidence to show that it had been returned.

But the gentleman had said a great deal about the money having been paid by the friends of Mr. Lyon. Now of what consequence was that? What did it matter, and how could it affect the case, whe

This was the defence for the vote he had given.

had te But he would fot rest it there. He was one of those who would ever take the responsibility of a negative vote, whenever he could not, for want of sufficient and satisfactory knowledge, give an affirmative one. But if this money had been paid 1 by Lyon in 1798, was it not to be inferred that, when Jefferson came into power, it would have been restored? Then are we not bound to infer that full and prompt justice would have been done, ar and that the money which had been wrested from the pockets of a citizen would be restore? Was it likely that the administration of Mr. Jefferson de would have refused that justice, which we now, forty years afterwards, were called upon to render? Were we now more Democratic, or more jealous than they?

In adverting to the alien and sedition laws, Mr. L. in the course of his remarks, was understood to say, that although he was not so old as those recollections would seem to imply, yet he had learned a great deal from the history of his country, and what had come down to him from his forefathers, who with himself had ranked among the true Democracy of the country, until 1835, when he believed The ceased to be endorsed by the gentleman from Maine as any longer a true Republican, but a degenerate branch from a true vine. Notwithstanding this, however, he believed he was still as true a Republican in integrity of heart as they were.

Mr. W. THOMPSON of South Carolina here claimed the floor, as he thought the gentleman would, after the evidence he was about to give, be perfectly satisfied that the bill ought to pass. He claimed the floor for the object of saving his friend from exerting his acknowledged power against the bill. After he should have made his remarks, he would venture to say that there was not a single man upon that floor who would vote against the a bill. He would pledge himself that after he had done, no one would be found who would question the fact that the money had been paid, and that it had not been refunded.

How stands this matter? Why, a man who ranked among the patriots of his country, who was cast into prison under an odious law-one who deserved a monument, and had it in the heart of every true man, and who stood up, one in ten thousand, against power and corruption, yet this man was entitled to no thanks from those who came after him. Here was a man, who, like the illus. ious patriot of England, John Hampden, had stood up against power in high places, for which he had suffered ignominy, and been thrust into the cell of a felon, and yet, in these times, objection was made to remunerating his heirs, because the man had been too poor to pay the fine himself. That country must be base, indeed, which would sanction such a plea. That country no longer deserved to be free which would deny justice to a suffering patriot on such grounds. In all the reports which had been made, it had never been denied that the money was paid. Yet gentlemen, at this late period, thought proper to start that objection, and upon rumor, mere floating rumor, had expressed their belief that it had never been paid. But the opposition of gentlemen was not consistent, for, first, it was contented that the money was not paid at all; and, second, that the money had been raised by Lyon's friends, and that, on that ground, the bill ought not to pass. But were we to legislate in this kind of a way, where was the use of our referring subjects of this nature to committees, if we paid no regard to the reports of those committees. Yet the reports of committees were disregarded, and reliance placed on mere rumor that the money had not been paid. Mr. T. here produced a copy of the sentence of Matthew Lyon to four months' imprisonment and a thousand dollars fine, with costs, and which required that he should stand committed until the sentence had been complied with. He also produced a copy of the order of the President of the United States to the marshal of Vermont, requiring him to keep Lyon in custody until the fine and costs were paid. Yes (said Mr. T.) to keep him in jail until he rotted, unless the money should be paid. Mr. T. then produced a copy of the certificate from the marshal that the

terms of the sentence had been complied with, and that Matthew Lyon was consequently discharged. This was dated the 9th of February, 1799, four months after the sentence had been passed. Now, said Mr. T. will any one say that the marshal had a right to discharge Matthew Lyon before the terms of the sentence had been complied with? Will any one suppose for a moment that the officer dared to discharge him before the fine was paid? But gentlemen contended that this money never came into the Treasury. What had that to do with the question? If the marshal had not done his duty by not forwarding the money to the Treasury, was that any reason why Matthew Lyon should not have justice? Would gentlemen contend, because Swartwont had ab-conded with Government money, that the merchants of New York were bound to pay over again the duties on their goods? Certainly

not.

Then he was surprised to hear gentlemen argue that because it was doubtful whether this fine was ever paid into the Treasury, justice should not be done to this patriot. As for the fine having been remitted, what evidence was there to lead to such a belief? He apprehended that Mr. Adams did not remit the fine; there could be no reason for.supposing that; and as for its being remitted by Mr. Jefferson, was it likely that a fine paid in 1799, would be remitted three years afterwards, in 1801? Here were the terms of the sentence, condemning Lyon to four months' imprisonment and a fine of $1,000, with costs; and here, too, was the certificate of the officer that the terms of the sentence had been complied with, and that the man was accordingly discharged. The date of the commitment was the 10th of October, 1798, and the date of the certificate February 9, 1799just four months, the period of imprisonment designated. Now what could gentlemen want more to satisfy them that the money had been paid? But to show the great danger there was in taking only ex parte testimony in such cases, he would advert to the paper read by his friend from Louisiana, [Mr. R. GARLAND, which stated that there was no record in the Treasury Department of the money having been received. That paper was a letter addressed to the Hon. Warren R. Davis, than whom a man with a purer heart and a better head never lived. Now what did Mr. Davis say in his report on the subject? Why, in speaking of the money, he said, "which was paid, as appears by the archives of the proceedings," etc. How dan. gerous was it, then, to take a single scrap of testimony, without embracing the whole. The gentleman from Louisiana himself discovered his error, and with a promptitude which did him much credit, furnished to him (Mr. T.) the certificates he had just read. He gave the gentleman from Louisiana great credit for his constant vigilance in watching over the interests of the country; but it was evident to all that there was great danger in relying upon ex parte testimony. Now, after what he had read, would any gentleman get up and defend the Government against this claim? Would any one say that this Lyon could be discharged without payment of his fine, any more than a defendant who had been committed for debt, without payment of that debt? Here was the testimony of Mr. Davis in his report, speaking of the money as having been paid, and also the certificate of the marshal to show that the fine had been exacted from this patriot, who dared to stand up for those great rights which Milton praised as above all others which man could enjoy, viz: the right to speak, to write, or to publish. It was nothing to us how the money was raised to pay that fine-whether it was raised by a prize in the lottery, or by a subscription among his friends. The fact was, the money had been paid. But (said Mr. T.) if there was no other way of getting rid of the money, I would burn it, rather than it should remain to pollute the Treasury any longer. The country ought to be glad of any excuse of getting rid of money wrung from the pockets of a patriot by such an odious law. If no other way could be found to dispose of it, it would be far better to burn it, rather than it should remain to pollute the Treasury. And if I were at all inclined to be superstitious, I should believe that all the evils which have affected the country since 1799, may be attributed to the

odious fine being deposited in the Treasury. Mr. T. concluded by hoping that no further opposition would be made to the bill, as there could be no one but who believed that the law under which the fine was imposed was a violation of the Constitu

tion.

Mr. WELLER believed with the gentleman from South Carolina, that the alien and sedition law was a violation of the Constitution, but at the same time he believed there were those in the country who believed it to have been in strict accordance with the Constitution. If he remembered correctly, he thought he had read a very long argument, by a gentleman now a member of the House, in favor of that law. The gentleman from South Carolina had said enough to satisfy every one that the bill ought to pass, and the only question to be decided was, whether the money had been paid. If the money had been paid by Mathew Lyon, it seemed to follow as a matter of course that it ought to be repaid. He believed with the gentleman, that the Treasury ought no longer to be contaminated-no, not for a single day, by money drawn from the pockets of a patriot, and placed in tis

vaults.

It would not do for gentlemen to say that the money never reached the Treasury, and make that an excuse. If the money had been paid over to the officer, and that officer squandered it, was that any reason why Matthew Lyon should suffer? Because evidence did not appear in the Treasury Department that the money had been received, was that ro overthrow the great mass of testimony which appeared, that the money had been paid by Lyon? Was it not just that the House should act on this question, after it had been delayed for so long a

me? It had been already delayed long enough. Year after year had passed away, and was it not very ungrateful for us, in 1840, to deny justice, which had been neglected for so long a period? He hoped the bill would pass, wohout further delay; and, believing that every gentleman was of the same opinion, he moved the previous question, but withdrew it at the request of

Mr. POPE, who wished to state a few facts in relation to this claim.

Mr. P. then went on, at some length, to state that he had been intimately acquainted with Mr. Lyon, who served in Congress with him, in the time of Jefferson, and that it was never doubted that the fine had been paid. It was understood, however, that the money had been made up by Mr. Lyon's friends. On concluding, Mr. P. according to his pledge, renewed the motion for the previous question.

Mr. PETRIKIN moved a call of the House, but it was not in order.

Mr. SLADE earnestly appealed to have the mo❤ tion for the previous question withdrawn, when Mr. L. WILLIAMS moved to lay the bill on the table.

Mr. TURNEY asked for the yeas and nays; which having been ordered,

Mr. L. WILLIAMS withdrew the motion. Mr. WELLER consented to have the previous question withdrawn; and

Mr. SLADE went into a statement of the facts of the case, the conviction of Lyon having taken place in Mr. S's district. He stated the circumstances of indignity accompanying the imprisonment-his being paraded through the district, thrown into a loathsome jail, and deprived of the use of pen, ink, and paper. The Democrats of the day gathered in a great assembly round the jail— an assembly not equalled by any Mr. S. had ever seen, save the grand convention at Baltimore-and a voluntary contribution was called for and taken up; but before it could be applied, the fine had been paid, either through the intervention of Col. Lyon's friends in another county, or by his own means. As soon as Lyon was at the jail door, he proclaimed that he was on his way to Congress. The cavalcade which attended him was half a mile longstepped at his father's house, and there all partook of cakes and hard cider, in true Democratic style. Mr. S. did not believe the fine had ever been remitted by Jefferson or by Congress.

Mr. S. concluded by renewing the motion for the previous question.