13

that of the committee, viz: that the memorial ought not to be entertained. After the reference, the committee proceeded to its consideration as speedily as possible, and they had had already two meetings. On the first meeting they deliberately considered the case of the complainant on his own statement, unaccompanied by any sort of evidence on which the slightest reliance could be placed. At the second meeting of the committee that morning there were seven members present, and they had unanimously come to the conclusion, without any hesitation, after considering the whole case, that upon the petitioner's own statement, there was nothing to justify even an inquiry into the conduct of Judge McLean. Now the particulars of the charges, and the remarks made on the presentation of the memorial, had gone forth to the country, and might occasion a pause in the public mind as to the confidence reposed in that officer, and in the Court of which he was a member; and as this was the case, the committee had thought right to instruct him to make this statement. The report could not be prepared immediately; therefore, the committee considered it a matter of justice that a statement of what the report would be should be made without delay, so that any unfavorable impression on the public mind might be removed.

The memorial was one of a singular character, but perhaps, however, not different from what might have been expected from a disappointed litigant, who thought he had much at stake in the suit, and who had failed to gain his end. Under such circumstances, and in this state of excitement, there could be no doubt but that much allowance ought to be made for the contumacious language of the petition. This was the judgment pronounced against the judge; and it struck him, that of all the judgments in the world, that of a defeated litigant in his own cause, and in his own behalf, was the least entitled to consideration. Nevertheless, the petitioner had made an issue in law between himself and the judge, and had assumed what the motives of the judge were, without any evidence. He had charged the judge with error, and gross corruption and ignorance.

In this way he had gone on to make no less than eighteen specifications, and had named them "Corruption No. 1, Corruption No. 2, Corruption No. 3, etc." filling out the whole eighteen specifications with "ignorance" and "corruption." Thus these heavy charges were made upon no better foundation than the assertion of a defeated litigant, who had undertaken to say the judge had decided wrong. And with this he had produced an allegation that, right or wrong, the judge had delayed his case, and thus deprived him of an opportunity of appealing to the Supreme Caurt of the United States, without which appeal he was to be ruined. In making those grave charges without any evidence, the petitioner rested them on most important principles in the rules of the court, which rules, he admits, he had no opportunity of seeing, and of which he does not pretend to have any knowledge. He merely assumes what the rule of the circuit court is; and while he admits that he does not know it, he rests his charges on what he thinks it is, and that the judge has not acted in accordance to it. This, however, was contrary to fact, as the rule was in accordance with the decision of the judge. He would repeat, that while there ought to be much allowance for the excitement of a defeated litigant, yet it was very difficult to account for the extraordinary recklessness of the memorialist in making charges against the judge so foul as these were.

Mr. S.

concluded, by stating that his only object in making the statement was to have it known as early as possible, that the committee were unanimous in the opinion that there was no foundation for the charges of the memorialist, nor was there any thing in the slightest degree calculated to affect the cofidence reposed in Judge McLean.

Mr. ALFORD of Georgia moved a reconsideration of the vote by which the House had, last evening, passed the pre-emptson bill.

Mr. A. proceeded to support his motion, professing himself a friend to the principle of pre-emption, if confined to the bona fide settler, as was done in the early pre-emption bills; but a bill like that which had so hastily been carried through the

House, he could consider as nothing else than a bill to give the public domain to the new States. It allowed any person, young or old, black or white, who was on the land when the bill passed, to ob tain a pre-emption right. So, if a man had eighteen children, (no uncommon number for a Western family,) he would get, virtually, eighteen preemptian rights. Mr. A. adverted to the great anxiety which had been manifested to rush the bill through the House, without explanation, or even an attempt to defend it; for, as to the speech of the gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. HUBBARD,] it only made confusion worse confounded, and seemed rather to conceal the real merits of the bill from the House. Mr. A. considered the public domain as gone, unless the House should retrace its steps.

He called more particularly upon Southern gentlemen to look at the effects of this bill-this land stealer's bill-for robbing the poor settler, for the benefit of the speculator. The bili was such, that it would, before another Congress, throw all the choice lands of the West into the hands of speculators. The public domain, from which so great a portion of the revenue had hitherto been drawn, would then be gone for little or nothing; and then how was that deficiency in the Treasury to be supplied, except by an increased tariff? He called upon every honest man upon the floor to help him in getting a reconsideration; for it was one of the most shameful and abominable measures that had ever been introduced into the House.

Instead of benefitting the hardy pioneer, who went with his axe on his shoulder to cut down trees, and build him a home in the wilderness, this bill gave to the speculator every chance of stealing the land away from the honest settler. Every one must have observed the manifest uneasiness there was to get the bill through; and if its supporters were not conscious that it was wrong, whence was there so much haste--so much anxiety to stop all debate by the previous question? What would be the consequence? Why, before another Congress, he would repeat, that the whole public domain would be swallowed up by speculators, when it would be then too late to repeal the law. He called upon gentlemen to pause, ere it was too late, and to join with him in reconsidering the vote, so so that these obnoxious portions of it might be amended. If they refused, the poor man must be defrauded, and driven from his home, by these hordes of land stealers and wealthy robbers; for he would give his word that, for the next six months, this bill would give rise to the formation of more land companies than had ever existed before, who would swallow up all the best lands, to the exclusion of the poor, honest settler.

Mr. JAMESON inquired of the CHAIR whether the bill was now in possession of the House, or had been sent to the Senate?

The CHAIR replied it had gone to the Se

nate.

Mr. SMITH of Indiana then made a point of order, insisting that as the bill was not in possession of the House, it was too late for the House to reconsider it.

The CHAIR overruled the objection.

Mr. ALFORD proceeded for some time, when Mr. SMITH renewed the question of order, and read a precedent to confirm his view.

Mr. ALFORD said he hoped the bill would be sent for.

The CHAIR insisting on its decision that the motion to reconsider was in order,

Mr. SMITH took an appeal.

Mr. ALFORD spoke to order, and insisted on the right of the House to reconsider, let the bill be where it might.

Mr. LEET was in favor of sustaining the decision of the CHAIR; and after some remarks on the question of order, he moved the previous question on the appeal.

The previons question having been seconded, and being about to be put,

Mr. SMITH withdrew his appeal.
Mr. PETRIKIN renewed it.

Much confusion here arose, but at length Mr. P. was suffered to speak in support of this motion, which he did, insisting that the first thing to to be done was to send for the bill before it could

be reconsidered. Possibly the bill had been sent to the President for his signature.

Mr. TILLLINGHAST spoke to the question of order, contending that the right to reconsider was a constitutional right of the House, which nothing could take away. Though the Senate might have sent away the bill, and though the President might have signed it, if the House reconsider the vote on the passage within the time allowed by the rule, the bill would remain a nullity; it would be of no effect; in a word, it would not be a law.

Mr. WISE suggested to Mr. ALFORD to move that the bill be sent for.

Mr. W. C. JOHNSON, after some preliminary remarks, moved the previous question on the appeal.

The motion was seconded, put, and carried, and the main question being on sustaining the decision of the CHAIR,

Mr. CRABB demanded the yeas and nays; but the House refused to oreer them, and the vote being taken, the decision of the CHAIR was sustained without a count.

Mr. ALFORD then resumed and proceeded to speak with great earnestness against the bill, espe cially against giving every settler on one quarter section of land a floating claim on the quarter section adjoining, the result of which would be equivalent to giving him both for the price of one; because the other would never sell, if subject to the float. It also subjected the honest settler to the fraudulent claims of speculators, who could hire perjured witnesses to swear him out of his improvement. Mr. A. referred to great frauds perpetrated in Alabama, near his own residence, and within his own knowledge.

While Mr. A. was proceeding in his argument, the bill was returned from the Senate with the signature of the Vice President, and taken up to the Chair to await the decision of the Speaker.

Mr. A. now commented with increased severity on the unprecedented speed with which this bill had got through both Houses, which he contrasted with the snail like progress of many meritorious private claims.

He spoke of the effect of the bill in covering the 16th section in every township reserved for purposes of education; and the result in ultimately giving the settler who happened to have set down on such section a float to the same amount. He appealed, in conclusion, to Southern gentlemen, on the effect of having the public lands thus filched out of the Government; it must necessarily lead to an increase of the tariff, &c.

Mr. CHAPMAN of Alabama said the bill had been fully analyzed before its passage by two of the most able opponents of the bill; they had pointed out all the evil efforts which they apprehended would grow out of the passage of the measure; and firmly believing that those gentleman, as well as the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. ALFORD] were entirely mistaken in the construction they gave the bill, and that their apprehensions of the bad effects to grow out of it were not well founded, and being satisfied that no good could grow out of a protracted discussion, he moved the previous question.

Mr. CHAPMAN of Iowa took an appeal from the decision of the Chair, that the motion to reconsider was in order; and was about proceeding to discuss the appeal, when the CHAIR ruled that it was not in order to discuss the appeal.

Mr. WISE here interposed, and said the gentleman's object avowedly was to say something upon the merits of the bill. The section of country from which he came was more interested in the measure than any other, and therefore he hoped the House would hear him. But there being cries of "question,"

Mr. CHAPMAN withdrew his appeal. Mr. L. WILLIAMS moved a call of the House, and on that motion demanded the yeas and nays; which having been ordered, were-yeas 69, nays

108.

So the House refused a call.

H

Mr. UNDERWOOD solicited the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. CHAPMAN] to withdraw the motion for the previous question, to enable him to make a few remarks on the bill.

Mr. CHAPMAN of Alabama said he could not do so.

The question being whether the previous question shall have a second, and tellers having been demanded to ascertain that fact, and Messrs. CHAPMAN of Alabama and GERRY having been appointed, reported that there were-ayes 90, nces 70. So there was a second.

The question then recurred whether the main question shall now be pur? when

Mr. LINCOLN demanded the yeas and nays; which, having been ordered, were-yeas 155, nays 77, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Hugh J. Anderson, Atherton, Banks, Beatty, Beirne, Blackwell, Boyd, Albert G. Brown, Burke, Carr, Carroll, Casey, Chapman, Chinn, Clifford, Coles, Connor, Wm. R. Cooper, Crabb, Craig, Crary, Crockett, Cross, Dana, Davce, John Davis, John W. Davis, Dickerson, Dellet, Doan, Doig, Dromgoole, Earl, Eastman, Ely, Fletcher, Floyd, Fornance, Galbraith, Gerry, Green, Griffia, Hand, John Hastings, Hawkins, Hill of North Carolina, Hiilen, Holleman, Hook. Hopkins, Howard, Hubbard, Jackson, Jaineson, Cave Johnson, Nathaniel Jones, J. W. Jones, Keim, Kilie, Leadbetter, Leet, Leonard, Lewis, Lowell, Lucas, McClellan, McCuiloh, McKay, Marchand, Medill, Miller, Montanya, Montgomery, Samuel W. Morris, Newhard, Nisbet, Parrish, Parmenter. Parris, Paynter, Petrikin, Pickens, Pope, Prentiss, Ramsey, Rariden, Reynolds, Rhett, Rives, Edward Rogers, Ryall, Samuels, Shaw, Albert Smith, John Smith, Thomas Smith, Steenrod, Strong, Stuart, Sumter, Swearingen, Sweney, Francis Thomas, P. F. Thomas, Jacob Thompson, Turney, Vanderpoel, David D. Wagener, Watterson, Weller, Wick, Jared W. Williams, Henry Williams, and C. H. Williams-155.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Alford, John W. Allen, Andrews, Barnard, Bond, Briggs, Brockway, Anson Brown, S. II. Butler, Wm. O. Butler, Calhoun, Carter, Clark, Cranston, Cushing, Edward Davies, Garret Davis, Dawson, Deberry, Dennis, Edwards, Evans, Everett, Fillmore, Fisher, James Garland, Gentry, Giddings, Goggin, Goode, Graham, Graves, Grinnell, Habersham, Hall, Wm. S. Hastings, Hawes, Henry, Hill of Virginia, Hoffman, Charles Johnston, William Coat Johnson, Kempshall, Lincoln, McCarty, Marvin, Mason, Mitchell, Morgan, Ogle, Osborne, Peck, Randall, Randolph, Rayner, Ridg way, James Rogers, Russell, Sergeant, Shepard, Slade, Truman Smith, Storrs, Taliaferro, Waddy Thompson, Tillinghast, Toland, Triplett, Trumbull, Underwood, Warren, J. White, Thomas W. Williams, Lewis Williams, Joseph L. Williams, and Wise-77.

So the main question was ordered.

The question then recurred on the motion to reconsider; when

Mr. LINCOLN demanded the yeas and nays on the question; which, having been ordered, wereyea, 96, nays 103, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Adams, Alford, John W. Allen, Andrews, Banks, Baker, Barnard, Bond, Botts, Briggs, Brockway, Anson Brown, Sampson II. Butler, Bynum, Calhoun, J Campbell, Carter, Coles, Connor, James Cooper, Cranston, Edw. Davies, Garret Davis, Dawson, Deberry, Dennis, Elwards, Evans, Everett, Fillmore, Fisher, James Garland, Rice Garland, Gentry, Giddings, Goggin, Goode, Graham, Graves, Green, Griffin, Grinnell, Habersham, Hall, Wm. S. Hastings, Hawes, Haw kins, Henry, Hill of Virginia, Hill of North Carolina, Hoffan, Holmes, Hunt, Charles Johuston, William C. Johnson, Kempshall, Lincoln, McCarty, Marvin, Mason, Mitchell, Montgoinery, Morgan, Nisbet, Ogle, Osboin, Peck, Pickens, Randall, Randolph, Rayner, Ridgway, James Rogers, Russell, Saltonstall, Samuels, Sergeant, Shepard, Stade, Truman Smith, Stanly, Storrs, Sumier, Taliaferro, Waddy Thompson, Tillinghast, Toland, Triplett. Trumbull, Underwood, Warren, John White, Thomas W. Williams, Lewis Williams, Jos. L. Williams, and Wise-96.

NAYS-Messrs. Hugh J. Anderson, Atherton, Beatty, Beirne, Blackwell, Boyd, Aaron V. Brown, Albert G. Brown, Burke, William Ó. Butler, Carr, Carroll, Casey, Chapman, Clifford, William R. Cooper, Crabb, Craig, Craiy, Crockett, Cross, Cushing, Dana, Davee, John Davis, John W. Davis, Dickerson, Dellet, Doan, Doig, Dromgoole, Duncan, Earl, Eastman, Ely, Fletcher, Floyd, Fornance, Galbraith, Gerry, Hand, John Hastings, Hillen, Holleman, Hook, Hopkins, Howard, Hubbard, Jackson, Jameson, Cave Johnson, Nathaniel Jones, Keim, Kemble, Kille, Leadbetter, Lect, Leonard, Lewis, Lowell, Lucas, McClellan, McKay, Marchand, Medill, Miller, Montanya, S. W. Morris, Newhard, Parrish, Parmenter, Parris, Paynter, Petri. kin, Prentiss, Proffit, Ramsey, Rariden, Reynolds, Rhett, Rives, E. Rogers, Ryall, Shaw, Albert Smith, John Smith, Thomas Smith, Steenrod, Strong, Stuart, Swearingen, Sweney, Taylor, Philip F. Thomas, Jacob Thompson, Turney, Vanderpoel, David D. Wagener, Watterson, Weller, Wick, Jared W. Williams, and Henry Williams-103.

So the House refused to reconsider the bill. The House then passed to the orders of the day. The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the Commissioner of Pensions, in compliance with a resolution of the 26th inst. copies of the papers in relation to the claim of Aaron Mellon of Massachusetts, a soldier of the late war with Great Britain, for an invalid pension.

On motion of Mr. LINCOLN, it was referred to the Committee on Inval d Peasions.

Various Senate bills on the SPEAKER's table, were taken up, read twice, and appropriately commit

ted.

INDEPENDENT TREASURY BILL. The House then resolved itself iato Committee of the Whole, (Vir. BANKS in the chair) and re

The Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union (Mr. BANKS, of Virginia, in the chair) resumed the consideration of the bill "to provide for the collection, safe-keeping, transfer, and disbursement of the public revenue."

Mr. CUSHING resumed his remarks in opposition to the bill, and concluded at twenty-five minutes before 6 o'clock.

Mr. LOWELL then took the floor in reply to Mr. CUSHING, and in defence of the bill. He was proceeding to examine the relative merits of the deposite system, and the present measure, with a view of showing that the latter was the more constitutional, safe, and convenient mode of keeping the public money, when, at the request of several members, he suspended his remarks, and

Mr. PARRIS moved that the committee rise; which motion was agreed to, and the committee accordingly rose; when

Mr. RANDOLPH moved an adjournment; on which motion,

Mr. HAND called for the yeas and nays, which, having been ordered, and being taken, were, yeas 65, nays 50.

The House, at 64 o'clock p. m. adjourned.

IN SENATE,

THURSDAY, May 28, 1840.

Mr. DAVIS pre-ented the petition of sundry citizens of Provincetown, Massachusetts, praying for an appropriation for the improvement of their harbor; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. GRUNDY presented the memorial of Samuel Martin of Tennessee; which was referred to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads.

Mr. WHITE, from the Committee on Pensions, reported unfavorably on the bill from the House for the relief of John England.

Mr. WHITE, from the same committee, reported, without amendment, the bill from the House for the relief of Jacob Becker, recommending its passage.

Mr. WILLIAMS, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, reported, without amendment, the bill for the relief of the sureties and heirs and representatives of Melancton W. Bostwick, deceased.

Mr. W. from the same committee, also reported, without amendment, the bill to regulate enlistments in the army and navy.

Mr. MOUTON, from the Committee on Private Land Claims, reported, without amendment, the House bill for the relief of Pierre Molaison and others.

Mr. TAPPAN, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, to which was referred the memorial of Bliss and Creighton, moved that the committee be discharged from the further consideration thereof; which motion was agreed to.

The report of the Committee on Naval Affairs, unfavorable to the petition of Rd. T. Mason, wa considered and concurred in.

Mr. KNIGHT, on leave, introduced a bill entitled "An act concerning the prisoners of the United States committed to the jail in the county of Providence, in the State of Rhode Island; which was twice read, and referred.

Mr. PIERCE, from the Committee on Pensions, made unfavorable reports on the bills from the House for the relief of Catherine Allen, the widow of Phebe Dickman, and John Strickland; and on the memorial of John Keeler and Lot Stricklin.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill authorizing the States to tax any lands within their limits sold by the United States.

Mr. NORVELL said that he had, the other day, presented his views of the financial and pecuniary bearing of the bill now under consideration. He had then stated that, by the compacts accompanying the admission of the several new States into the Union, the public lands sold within their

The

respective limits were exempt from taxation for five years from the day of sale. Michigan and Arkansas constituted exceptions to this rule. They were entitled to tax the lands within their limits as soon as they were sold by the United States. object of the present bill was to place the other new States, in this respect, on an equal footing with the States of Arkansas and Michigan. The effect of the measure would not be to diminish the sales of the public lands at all, especially to actual settlers the only class of persons to whom it was desirable to sell the public domain. The sales in Michigan and Arkansas, compared with those in the other new States, would conclusively demonstrate the truth of this assertion. He believed that it was not for the interest of the United States to continue the exemption of lands in the hands of individuals from taxation. Of course, those already sold by the Government, purchased, as they were, under a pledge of the public faith that they should not be taxed for five years, must continue exempt from taxation to the end of that time. The bill annulled the exemption only as regarded lands hereafter to be sold. He had been surprised to hear it stated by his friend from Missouri, [Mr. LINN,] that this bill would have the effect of taking from the new States their two and three per cent. funds, derived from the proceeds of the public lands, and that the good faith of the Government required a continuance of the benefit of that fund to the States entitled to it. He had been equally surprised to find that the interest of the Cumberland road would be injuriously affected by the proposed bill. Now, sir, by the compacts with the new States, several restrictions and grants were provided. They were all sacred, and could not be repealed, except with the consent of the parties to them. This bill proposed that the United States should relinquish to the States the right to tax the public lands as soon as they passed into the hands of individuals, if the States chose to accept the boon. It was perfectly competent to Congress to take off the restriction upon the States on this subject, if they deemed it proper to do so. But the bill was limited to this single object. It did not propose to ask the States to surrender the two and three per cent. fund to the General Government. This could not be done without the consent of the States; and their consent to such a surrender was neither suggested in the bill, nor did the United States desire it. The public faith was, therefore, not involved in the question. If the two or three per cent. fund, so far as the Cumberland road was concerned, were not already exhausted, it would continue to be applied to the completion of that road. In no possible state of things could the bill have the least bearing on the Cumberland road.

were

He now proposed to add to these views, which he had briefly expressed when the bill was up before, a single remark or two upon the political effects of the bill. One of the greatest complaints coming from the new States, with regard to their peculiar positions, was, that many of their sovereign rights, much of their rightful jurisdiction, which remained with the old States, had been taken from the new. Among these rights and this jurisdiction, those which related to the vacant domain within their limits, and to the imposition of taxes upon all real property, were, perhaps, the most important. In these respects, the new States were in the condition of inferiors to the old States, and of vassals to the United States. They not upon an equal footing, as the Constitution required, with the original States of this Union. It was the object of the bill to restore to the new States their sovereign right of taxation, so far as respected all public lands, as soon as they were sold; and he had been astonished, he had been astounded, when he had heard an ob jection to this proposition proceeding from any Senator from a new State, It was true that this bill had been introduced by an individual member-by himself; but it had been introduced after a consultation with the Commitee on the Public Lands, and with their decided concurrence. It had been referred to that committee, by whose instruction he had reported it to the Senate. He believed that a similar bill had heretofore twice passed this body; certain it was, that he had introduced and

3

2

corrupting powers, with the Government, thereby

to increase the patronage and strength of the Executive. He was for separating the money power from any connection with the Government-the Government was strong enough without it. He proved that the banks, upon the principles now established, were not proper or safe depositories for the Government funds; they wanted radical reform -such reform as could only be effected by State legislation. He was in favor of making such a currency for the people as was contemplated by the Constitution; that is, a gold and silver currency for general circulation, and large notes for the use of the merchan's for purposes of commerce.

In alluding to the remarks of Mr. CUHING, who asked why this measure was not deferred until next year, so that the matter might be submitted to the people, Mr. L. contended that it had already been fairly submitted to the people. By a reference to the elections in the States of Massachusetts, Maine, New Jersey, Ohio, and other States, he showed that, when the people had had an opportunity of manifesting their wishes, they had de2 cided in favor of the measure. Yes; this subject had already been put to the people who had acted upon it, and who elected their Representatives with a view to this great question; and when the question should be taken, he would prophesy that the measure would be carried through by the votes of members so instructed.

The committee here, at half past two, took a

recess.

EVENING SESSION.

After the recess,

Allud

Mr. LOWELL resumed his remarks. ing to the charge that this bill was intended to create "one currency for the Government and another for the people," he contended that to the degree in which gold and silver was paid to Government, to such degree would the currency of the country be benefited by the substitution of a sound and safe currency for bank paper. He said there was a grand mistake into which many persons fell when speaking of the people; they generally considered the banks as the people, which was a great fallacy, and calculated to lead them away from the true issue. Experience had shown that the banks and the people were two different interests.

Another objection to the bill was, that it would increase Executive patronage. Now could the Executive, if he were so inclined, find a surer means of i creasing his power, than by forming an alliance with the numerous State banks? There was no other plan by which so great a share of power could be secured, as that of an alliance with banks, and the interests connected with them. But the present measure was calculated to afford no means of increasing the Executive po ver, compared with that of banks.

It had been asserted that the system was already in operation, and yet there was distress throughout the land. But from whom did those cries of distress come? They came, not from the people themselves, but from the bank officers and speculaters, whose interest it was to have it believed that such distress prevailed. Mr. L. then alverted to various facts to show that this cry of distress was false, and only raised for the purpose of producing a panic. He said the crowded wharves, the steamboats and railroad cars, gave the lie to the doleful tales poured in upon us by these Bank men. These cries came not from the poor man; they came from those who lived in splendid palaces, from men who fared sumptuously every day, and who rode in their carriages. These were the men who were uter ng complaints against the extravagance of Government, while they themselves were surrounded by extravagance, and revelling in luxury. He then went on to show how many times the country had been ruined, according to the account of these speculater; and, notwithstanding it had thus been so frequently rained, it was yet one of the best countries upon earth.

Another objection was, that this measure would have the effect of raising the price of provisions, and of injuring the agricultural interest. But history showed that the operation of a United States Bank went directly to produce such a result, and that it had done serious injury, by raising and de

pressing the price of its provisions at its pleasure. In proof of this, he referred to a table, which will be inserted when his remarks appear in full.

Mr. CUSHING having referied to England, as an instance of the beneficial effects of banking, Mr. L. caused to be read at the Clerk's desk, a report made to the British House of Commons, showing the injurious effects of that system upon the laboring classes.

Mr. L. went on to show how injuriously the sudden rise or fall of prices operated upon the poor man; whereas this measure, unlike the bank system, would tend to regulate and prevent any fluctuation in prices. He also examined, at some length, many objections which had been urged against this measure-a full report of which will be given hereafter.

Mr. ATHERTON then took the floor in support of the bill, and in reply to the objections of Mr. CUSHING. After some introductory remarks, he proceeded to state what were the general principles of the bill. He contended that the money of the people should be safely kept by the people's own officers, responsible to them, and that it ought not to be used by corporations or private individuals. Alo, that this bill made provision, by which, through successive steps, all the revenue would be collec'ed in gold and silver, the legal coin and constitutional revenue. He believed this measure would recommend itself, because it was a system combining safety, convenience, and economy. Mr. A. then adverted to the great distress and inconvenience occasioned by the general suspension of specie payments by the banks in 1837, and also by the recent suspension, as proofs of the necessity of adopting some other mode of keeping the public money.

This measure would also enable the Government to control the revenue raised for legal and constitutional purposes. It provided for the security of the funds, by a system of checks and bonds, so that even the most unforeseen exigencies would be guarded against, and that powerful temptationthe use of the public money-be removed. This was a very important provision, for experience had proved that the use of the public money by officers of Government, was the true cause of all the defalcations.

This bill provided for a system most consonant to the principles of our Republic and free institu tions. Why? He would show it. In the first place, he laid it down as a proposition that the taking possession of the public revenue, and using it for the purpose of private gain and speculation, necessarily gave power and control over that revenue. Secondly, the control of that revenue, necessarily gave a high degree of political power, for money was the sinews of political, as well as physical warfare. If so, then came a third proposition, which was, that the people are the true source of all political power, and not the banks. The bauks, then, not being the source of political power, ought not to be entrusted with it. Banking companies were not politically responsible,and ought not to be entrusted with political power. He was sure no gentleman would rise and contend that the banks s were politically responsible; then why ought those institutions to be entrusted with the public revenue, the possession of which conferred political

power.

After explaining many other beneficial results which would arise from the adoption of this measare, Mr. A. referred to a remark made by Mr. CUSHING on a former day, "that this scheme had originate with Hamilton, who, finding it would not answer, discarded it," etc. Mr. A. showed that instead of the scheme origina ing with Hamilton, it originated with the Constitution itself, and was in operation at the time of Hamilton. Instead of the measure having a Federal origin, it was the measure of the Constitution, which was rejected by Hamilton so soon as he thought he had suflicient power to make the change from that to a United States Bank. Mr. A. read a number of extracts from works of authority, proving that

fact.

After some further observations, Mr. A. expatiated on the "safety" of this measure, compared with that of the deposite, or United States Bank

system. He adverted to the great cry which had been raised in respect to the defalcation of Swartwout, and which had been used as an argument against this scheme. But, said Mr. A. that defalcation took place under the deposite bank system, and is, therefore, no argument against this measure, which proposes to place the money in the hands of collectors, under a rigid system of checks. Besides, were officers of a bank any more to be trusted than officers appointed by Government? Did not experience show that bank presidents, and bank cashiers, were sometimes as bad as other offenders?

Again, it was urged that a single officer of Government, entrusted with so much money, was liable to abscond, whereas, a banking corporation could not. But if a corporation could not abscond, that corporation might become an abstract nonentity, so that the law could not touch them, which was all the same. In addition to this intangibility of their nature, the officers of a corporation could, and did, abscond the same as Swartwout.

Mr. A. then went on to examine documents, to see the relative amount of loss under the present system and that of the banks; and showed that the loss from defalcation of public officers was not a fifteenth part of that arising from the depreciation of bank paper.

In noticing the several arguments of Mr. CUSHING, in favor of the banking and credit system, he adverted to the affairs of Great Britain, on which Mr. C. had passed a glowing eulogium. But, said Mr. A. the gentleman has given us but one side of the picture. While he has held up to our view the splendid palaces and luxuries of the great, he has omitted to notice the scenes of beggary and desolation which stalk forth over that land. He has forgotten to tell us of the poor man's hovel, and the wretched condition of the population in the manufacturing districts, where young children are sent to a premature grave, by hard and unhealthy labor, and whose parents spend the whole of their existence in a hopeless struggle against the demon, starvation. If the gentleman would give both sides of the picture, he would find that Great Britain was no very great argument in favor of his system. Besides, the gentleman had connected banking and civilization together. But if civilization depended upon banking, how was it before 1694, when that system was established in England? Would the gentleman contend that England was not civilized before that time, and that Shakspeare and Milton were not civilized?

After answering a great many other points raised by Mr. CUSHING in favor of the banking system, Mr. A. said he would take a single objection raised by Mr. C. against this bill, which would serve as a specimen of all the rest. It was in relation to the provisions of the sixteenth section, which required that "certificates of deposite" should be given by the collector or agent when money was paid over to him. Now it was contended by the gentleman from Massachusetts, that these certificates of deposite would become a part of the paper currency of the Government! How could such be the case? How could a mere receipt or certificate of deposite for money paid become a part of the currency? Would gentlemen pretend to say that with such certificates it would be possible to travel from one part of the country to another? Would any body be foolish enough to take such receipts for money? Why, upon the very same principle, a man, after paying a debt, and getting a receipt, might go into a store and attempt to purchase goods with that receipt. Such a man would be laughed at as insane; and yet the gentleman from Massachusetts warns the people, that, in case this bill should pass, these receipts or certificates of deposite will become a part of the currency! Such, said Mr. A. are the arguments which gentlemen who oppose this bill use to terrify and alarm the people.

After confuting many other objections in the same way, Mr. A. concluded by demanding of the Opposition that if they were not satisfied with this measure, they should propose some other in its stead. They all acknowledged that some remedy was necessary, and if this did not suit them, the country would demand of them that they should propose something which did. If they

refused, it would plainly prove that they dare not propose their system, and that they were waiting to establish their favorite United States Bank, not by argument, but by suffering.

The remarks of Mr. A. will be given in extenso as early as convenient.

Mr. LEET next obtained the floor, but, without proceeding in his remarks, the committee rose; when,

On motion of Mr. CURTIS,

The House, at 9 o'clock, p. m. adjourned.

IN SENATE,

FRIDAY, May 29, 1840.

Mr. CUTHBERT presented the petition of J. D. Gibson; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

Mr. CRITTENDEN presented the petition of Richard Higgins; which was referred to the Committee on Private Land Claims.

Mr. WHITE, from the Committee on Pensions, reported a bill for the relief of Mary Preityman; which was read, and ordered to a second reading. Mr. PIERCE, from the Committee on Pensions, to which was referred the petition of Ambrose Casey, made an adverse report thereon; which was ordered to be printed.

Mr. P. also, from the same committee, reported a bill for the relief of Mary Snow; which was read, and ordered to a second reading.

Mr. BUCHANAN, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, to which was referred a bill to carry into effect a convention between the United States, and the Mexican Republic, reported the same without amendment.

Mr. B. also, from the same Committee, reported a joint resolution, authorizing the President of the United States to accept certain presents from the Imaum of Muscat, and the Emperor of Morocco, and to dispose of the same; which was read twice, and ordered to be engrosed for a third reading.

On motion by Mr. WILLIAMS, the vote by which the unfavorable report of the Committee on Naval Affairs in the case of Richard Mason was agreed to, was reconsidered.

On motion by Mr. HUBBARD, the bill for the relief of General D. L. Clinch was recommitted to the Committee on Claims.

An act to amend an act approved the 18th of January, 1839, entitled an act to amend an act entitled an act to require the judge of the District of East and West Tennessee to hold a court at Jackson, in said State, approved June the eighteenth, eighteen hundred and thirty-eigh', and for other purposes, was considered as in committee of the whole, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

The bill for the relief of the legal representatives of Philip Barbour, was discussed by Messrs. LINN, HENDERSON, WALKER, and STRANGE, and its further consideration postponed until Monday next.

Mr. CLAYTON submitted the following motion, which was agreed to:

Resolved, That the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby directed, to communicate to the Senate the correspondence between the District Attorney of the United States for the Delaware District, and the War Department, relative to the proceedings which have been taken for the recovery of the Peapatch, and the correspondence between the persons claiming the said Peapatch, or their agents, and the Department, since the 1st of March, 1839. Mr. DAVIS submitted the following motion, which was agreed to:

Resolved, That the Committee on Commerce be instructed to inquire into the expediency of modifying the law in relation to seamen discharged in foreign ports.

GENERAL BANKRUPT LAW.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States, and after several amendments had been proposed, discussed, and disposed of, the further consideration of the bill was postponed until Monday next.

The Senate then went into Executive session,
And afterwards adjourned until Monday next.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

FRIDAY, May 29, 1840.

Mr. CHINN asked leave to submit a resolution, calling upon the Postmaster General for information of the time when the postmaster at Baton Rouge became a defaulter, &c.

Objection having been made to its reception,

Mr. CHINN moved to suspend the rules, to enable him to offer it, and on that motion demanded the yeas and nays; which, having been ordered, were-yeas 54, nays 34.

So the House refused to suspend the rules. Mr. TRIPLETT gave notice that he would, on Monday next, ask leave to introduce the bill indicated by him on yesterday, supplementary to the act granting pre-emptions to settlers on the public lands.

The SPEAKER announced that the first business in order was the question of order raised by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. CURTIS] against the reception of the report of the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. HILLEN,] from the Committee on Commerce, accompanied by a bill for the repeal of the law regula ing pilots,

was

Mr. DICKERSON, who was entitled to the floor, argued in favor of the right and power of a committee, under the settled principles of rules, to reconsider a vote. He said the gentlemen, who now questioned the right of a committee to reconsider a vote on the adoption of a report, should have met the question when it was proposed to refer the remonstrances which were received since the adoption of that report. The vote had been reconsidered, and the House, by the act of referenee of the remonstrances, received subsequently to the report, was, in itself, authority to the committee to reconsider. He considered it a matter settled. He argued that it was a power inherent in all deliberative bodies to reconsider; and that the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. DROMGOOLE] mistaken when he supposed the committees claim the right by the rule to reconsider, such was not the case. That right existed; but if the rule was applicable at all, it was to control the power and natural right of committees to reconsider; and not to confer the right. It could not be to confer the right, because the right was inherent in the body. The rules merely regulated the natural powers of the committees or of the House. Therefore those who contend that a committee had no right to reconsider, must show that there was a limitation in the rule of the right to reconsider. He argued, by the terms of the adoption of the rule, that the power had not been limited. Mr. D. adverted to the practice of the committees to show that they had exercised the power to reconsider; and cited a case at this session, in the Committee of Elections, where the question had been raised, and had been decided by a vote of that committee of seven to one, that they had the power to reconsider. He argued that, from the circumstance no instance could be found since the formation of the Government, where a committee had asked the privilege of the House to reconsider a vote, that the power must have been exercised by the committees, without any authority from the House. If such had

not

been the case, many erroneous decisions mast have been made by the committees. The right was as important to the committee as it was to the House. He was willing that the Manual should have all the effect it was intended to have by Mr. Jefferson, but he did not believe that it was ever intended that this principle of the Manual, which had been quoted against the right of a committee to reconsider, was ever intended to be operative and binding on the standing committees. If the principle should obtain, it would give the minority of the committee the power to control the majority on the final action.

Mr. CRAIG said the only question before the House now was, whether the rule which prohibits the right of a committe to reconsider, was in fact a rule adopted by the House. He contended that by the adoption of the parliamentary law as laid down in the Manual by Mr. Jefferson, such a rule was in existence. The rale expressly says that no committee shall reconsider a vote except by authority of the House. The arguments that had been ad

vanced might be a good reason why such a rule should not be adopted, or that it should be repealed, but could not change or set aside the rule as it now existed. The rule was in existence and imperative, that the committee shall not reconsider.

Mr. POPE made an argument in favor of the right of the committee to reconsider a vote, and contended that the report of a committee was not complete till the report was received by the House. Mr. BRIGGS obtained the floor; when

The SPEAKER announced that the morning hour had expired.

Mr. J. W. JONES said in consequence of the advanced period of the session, and there being so many important public bills on the calendar to be acted on, he felt himself impelled, by a sense of duty to the country, to make a motion to suspend the rules in relation to private business. He then asked a suspension of the rules to enable him to offer a resolution that the House would then resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. He said that he would, if the resolution be adopted, move in committee to take up the Independent Treasury bill.

Mr. J. C. CLARK said he would agree to vote for the motion to suspend the rule, if the gentleman would consent to go into committee on the appropriation bills.

[The Independent Treasury bill is the unfinished business of the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. When the Administration party made an effort to go into committee on the civil and diplomatic appropriation bill, which was recently passed, the Opposition were anxious to take up the Sub-Treasury bill in preference, and taunted the Administration with a desire to evade action on the Sub-Treasury bill, to defeat it by staving it off to the end of the session. The Opposition were then in favor of acting on the SubTreasury, and now they are for delaying action on it, and to take up the appropriation bills, and thus defeat the bill.]

The question was then taken on the motion to suspend the rules, and disagreed to by yeas 106, nays 84, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Hugh J. Anderson, Atherton, Banks, Beatty, Beirne, Black, Blackwell, Boyd, Albert G. Brown, Burke, Sampson H. Butler, William O. Butler, Bynum, Carr, Carroll, Casey, Chapman, Clifford, Coles, Colquitt, Connor, Mark A. Cooper, William R. Cooper, Craig, Crary, Cross, Dana, John Davis, Dickerson, Doan, Doig, Dromgoole, Earl, Eastman, Ely, Fisher, Fletcher, Floyd, Galbraith, Griffin, Hammond, Hand, John Hastings, Hawkins, Hill of North Carolina, Hillen, Holleman, Holmes, Howard, Hubbard, Jackson, Jameson, Cave Johnson, Nathaniel Jones, John W. Jones, Kemble, Kille, Leadbetter, Leet, Leonard, Lewis, Lowell, Lucas, McClellan, McCulloch, McKay, Mallory, Marchand, Miller, Montanya, Samuel W. Morris, Newhard, Parrish, Parmenter, Parris, Paynter, Petrikin, Fickens, Prentiss, Ramsey, Reynolds, Rhett, Edward Rogers, Ryall, Samuels, Shaw, Shepard, Albert Smith, John Smith, Thomas Smith, Starkweather, Steenrod, Strong, Sumter, Swearingen, Sweney, Taylor, Philip F. Thomas, Jacob Thompson, Turney, Vander poel, David D. Wagener. Weller, Wick, Jared W. Williams, and Henry Williams-106.

NAYS-Messrs. John W. Allen, Baker, Bell, Bond, Briggs, Brockway, Calhoun, W. B. Campbell, Carter, Chinn, Clark, J. Cooper, Crabb, Cranston, Crockett, Curtis, Cushing, Edw. Davies, Garret Davis, Dawson, Deberry, Dellet, Edwards, Evans, Everett, Fillmore, James Garland, Rice Garland, Gen. try, Giddings, Goggin, Goode, Graham, Graves, Green, Grinnell, Habersham, Hall, William S. Hastings, Hawes, Henry Hill of Va., Hoilman, James, Jenifer, Chas. Johnston, W. C., Johnson, Kempshall, Lincoln, McCarty, Marvin, Mason, Mitchell, Morgan, Calvary Morris, Osborne, Peck, Pope, Proffit, Randall, Randolph, Rariden, Ridgway, Russell, Saltonstall, Sergeant, Slade, Truman Smith, Stanly, Storrs, Stuart, Taliaferro, Waddy Thompson, Tillinghust, Toland, Triplett. Trumbull, Underwood, Edward D. White, John White, Thomas W. Wil liams, Lewis Williams, Joseph L. Williams, and Christopher H. Williams-84.

Not being two-thirds, the rules were not suspended.

Engrossed bill for the relief of John W. Faunce and Oliver Perren came up on its passage, when,

On motion of Mr. BRIGGS, its further consideration was postponed till to-morrow.

Engrossed bill for the relief of John J. Roane was next taken up; and,

On motion of Mr. HOPKINS, who was opposed to the bill on principle, it was postponed.

The bill for the relief of Benjamin Fry came up on its engrossment.

Mr. TILLINGHAST made a few remarks in favor of the bill.

Mr. PROFFIT moved so to amend the bill as to insert the words, "according to law."

Mr. TILLINGHAST opposed the motion as