So the House determined that the protest should not be entered upon the journal. The CHAIR then stated that the first part of the resolution of the gentleman from South Carolina, which had been adopted by the House, had been carried into effect. It would now be for the House to carry into effect the second part of the resolution, which was in the following words: "and after the names of such members are called, and before a Speaker is elected, they shall, provided there be a quorum of such present, then hear and adjudge upon the election, returns, and qualifications of all claimants (Mr. INGERSOLL and Mr. NAYLOR excepted) to the seats contested on this floor. Mr. DROMGOOLE rose, and submitted the following proposition, with a view of carrying into effect the latter part of the resolution of the gentleman from South Carolina: Resolved, That a select committee, to consist of nine, be appointed viva voce, by the members of this House, to whom shall be referred all the papers in the possession of the CLERK relating to contests for seats on this floor from the State of New Jersey, and that they report thereon. Mr. DROMGOOLE said it seemed to him that the House must feel itself bound in good faith to carry into effect the latter part of the resolution of the gentleman from South Carolina, and it had occurred to him that the most practicable way to do so would be to appoint a committee to examine into the matter. The question will then arise before the commiitee as to whether it is bound to take the returns sent in by the Governor of New Jersey as prima facie evidence, or whether it will examine into the facts of the case, and ascertain whether those facts would justify the making out of such a return as the Governor of New Jersey had sent in here. Mr. D. desired to make no argument on the question, and therefore concluded by moving the previous question. Mr. WISE rose to a question of order. He wished to know whether it was competent for his colleague, after the resolution of the gentleman from South Carolina had been adopted which declared that the House should hear and adjudge upon all claims, &c.-to take from this body the adjudication of the question. Mr. DROMGOOLE rose to a point of order. Mr. WISE. I am speaking to a point of order; and I contend that when the House has decided that it will hear and adjudge upon all claims to sea's, that it not in order to pass another resolution, taking the adjudication of the question from the House, and giving it to a committee. Mr. DROMGOOLE stated that when the matter was examined by the committee, it would come back to the House; and besides, the House had control of all its committees. The CHAIR stated that he was of opinion that it was perfectly competent for the House to proceed in the manner indicated by the resolution of the gentleman from Virginia. He therefore decided that the resolution was in order. MI. PROFFIT rose to ask an explanation. [Loud cries of "order!"] if gentlemen think I will yield, they are mistaken. [Great confusion, and cries of "order! order!"] I am about to raise a point of order, and I will speak as long as other gentlemen have spoken. [Continued cries of "order!" I have rights to maintain-I am personally responsible, here or elsewhere-["order!" order!"] and if the CHAIR decides that the resolution of the gentleman from Virginia is in order, I appeal from that decision. The CHAIR decided that the gentleman was not in order. Mr. PROFFIT. Then I appeal from that decision, and I shall speak upon it. [Many voicesthe appeal is not debatable ] Mr. PROFFIT. It is very well for some of you that it is not, [universal laughter ] Mr. WISE asked the gentlemau to withdraw his appeal. Mr. ROFFIT then withdrew his appeal. Mr. BELL rose, and called for the reading of the latter part of Mr. RHETT's resolution, which being read by the CLERK, Mr. B. submitted to the CHAIR, whether the resolution of the gentleman from Virginia was in conformity with the resolu⚫ tion which had just been read. He asked if there was to be any limitation as to the proofs to be submitted to this committee; and if there was, it was a resolution of the existing order of the body, and consequently was not in order. Mr. CRAIG. That will be a matter for the House to decide. Mr. BELL made no objection to the resolution, provided it conformed to the existing order of the House; but if it did not do so, he took it that it was not in order. Mr. THOMAS rose to make a single remark. Mr. PROFFIT. I call the gentleman to order. Mr. THOMAS wished to say but a word on the point of order. Mr. PROFFIT called the gentleman to order. The CHAIR did not consider the resolution of the gentleman from Virginia as limiting the order of the House of yesterday. The proposition of the gentleman from Virginia was to raise a committee, to whom all the papers in the case should be referred; but it will be perfectly competent for the House, after the committee is raised, to refer other papers to it, because the House always has it in its power to control its committees. Mr. WISE. Do I understand my colleague as admitting this construction. I wisk him to speak, for I know my colleague of old. Mr. DROMGOOLE hoped his colleague would not make him appear so very old here, [looking towards the ladies' gallery.] With regard to the inqui ry, he would simply remark that the view taken of his resolution, by the CHAIR, coincided with his views when he presented the resolution. He never dreamed but that the House had the power to send to the committee any testimony it saw proper to refer to it. Mr. SLADE would ask the gentleman to modify nis resolution, so as to make it conform to the resolution of yesterday. The previous question was then seconded, and the main question was then ordered. The yeas and nays were called upon the main question, and were-yeas 122, nays 84. YEAS-Messrs. Adams, Alford, Judson Allen, Hugh J. Anderson, Atherton, Banks, Beatty, Beirne, Blackwell, Boyd, Brewster, Aaron V. Brown, A. G. Brown, Burke, S. H. Butler, W. O. Butler, Bynum, John Campbell, Carr, Carroll, Casey, Chapman, Clark, Clifford, Coles, Conner, Crabb, Craig, Crary, Cross, Dana, Davee, John Davis, John W. Davis, De la Mon tanya, Doan. Doig, Dromgoole, Duncan, Earl, Eastman, Ely, Fine, Fisher, Fletcher, Floyd. Fornance, Galbraith, Jas. Garland, Gerry, Griffin, Hammond, Hand, J. Hastings, Hawkins, Hill of N. Carolina, Hillen, Holleman. Hook, Hopkins, Howard, Hubhard, Jackson, Jameson, Jos. Johnson, Cave Johnson, Nathaniel Jones, John W. Jones, Keim, Kemble, Leadbetter, Leet, Leonard, Lewis, Lowell, Luras, McClellan, McCulloh, McKay, Mallory, Marchaud, Medill, Miller, Montgomery, Smuel W. Morris, Newhard, Parish, Parmenter, Parris, Paynter, Petrikin, Prentiss, Ramsey, Reynolds, Rives, Robinson, Edward Rogers, James Rogers, Samuels, Shaw, Shepard, Albert Smith, John Smith, Thomas Smith, Starkweather, Steinrod' Strong, Sumter, Swearingen, Sweeny, Taylor, Francis Thomas, Philip F. Thomas, Waddy Thompson, Jacob Thompson, Toland, Turney, Vanderpooel, David D. Wagener, Walterson, Weller, Wick, Jared W. Williams, Henry Williams, and Worthing on-122. NAYS-Messrs. John W. Allen, Simeon W Anderson, Andrews, Bell, Biddle. Black, Bond, Botts, Briggs, Brockway, Anson Brown, Calhoun, William B. Campbell, Carter, China, Chittenden, James Cooper, Corwin, Cranston, Crockett, Cur tis, Cushing, Davies, Garret Davis, Dawson, Deberry. Dennis, Dillett, Edwards, Evans, Everett, Fillmore, Rice Gariand, Gates, Gentry, Gozgin, Goode, Graham, Granger, Graves, Green, Grinnell, Habersham, Hall, Hastings, Henry, Hill of Virginia, Hoffman, Holmes, Hunt, Hunter, James, Jenifer, Charles Johnston, King, Lawrence, Lincoln, Marvin, Mason, Mercer, Mitchell, Monroe, Morgan, Calvary Morris, Naylor, Nisbet, Ole, Osborne, Palen, Peck, Pickens, Pope, Proffit, Randall, Ranilolph, Rariden, Rayner. Reed, Rhett, Ridgway, Russell, Saltonstall, Sergeant, Simenton, Slade, Truman Smith, Stanley, Storrs, Stuart, Taliaferro, Tillinghast. Triplett, Trum bull, Underwood, Peter J. Wagner, Warren, Edward D. White John White, Thomas W. Williams, Lewis Williams, Joseph L. Williams, Christopher H. Williams, Sherrod Williams, and Wisc-94. So the resolution was adopted. [When the name of Mr. BERNARD was called, he rose and said that he declined answering to his name, because he considered that the House had no constitutional power to adopt such a proceeding ] [Mr. COOPER of Georgia declined voting on the same grounds] Mr. WISE. I presume that the question now before the House is, whether we shall proceed to ballot for a committee. I give notice, therefore, that I will not ballot, and I recommend to my friends to refuse to do so, [Cries of agreed, agreed.] Mr. SMITH of Maine. I give notice to the House that I will ballot. Mr. THOMPSON of South Carolina, rose and said that he held in his hand a resolution, which he intended to present, and on which he should not move the previous question, to prevent any atsar dity that it might contain from being exposed, as other gentlemen had done in the case of the resolutions presented by them. The House had resolved that it would consider these elections when he was persuaded that they had no power to move one step in the matter. The mem. bers from New Jersey who held the Governor's certificates, have presented the prima facie evidence of their right to the seats they claimed. The members who contest their seals present evidence to show that they have received a majority of the votes given; and it is contended that theirs is the best prima facie evidence, unless it can be shown that that majority was made up of the votes of aliens, as contended for on the other side. Mr. T. then went on to show that it would be impossible to do justice to either party, without hearing all the evidence that might be deemed necessary by both parties; and that the House had no power, in its present state, to summon and compel the attendance of witnesses. He knew not how the House was to act, but he had seen enough to know that the strongest principle in the nature of man was party feeling; and under the influence of that feeling, he had seen the sacred principles of the Constitution trampled down. He deemed it highly necessary that the committee should act under the responsibilities of an oath; but as no oath could be administered, but in an informal manner, he had drawn up a resolution for that purpose, which he now submitted to the House. Mr. T. here read his resolution, as follows: Resolved, That the committee raised on the New Jersey election, have power to send for persons and papers, and to swear witnesses; and that the members of said committee be themselves sworn before entering upon their duties. Mr. PICKERS having obtained the floor, said, I move this resolution as an amendment to that offered by my colleague. I desire, before proceeding into a discussion of the question, to state very brief the position which I occupy upon it. If the House chooses, in its wisdom, to raise a select committee in this case, I desire that the action of that committee shall be confined to some distinct question, and to the distinct question raised by this House. I desire their action to be confined to the simple question, "who are leturned as members from the State of New Jersey?" I agree in the justice of many of the remarks of my colleague in relation to the position now occu. pied by the House. I understood this from the first, and therefore I voted against the resolution of the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. WISE,] and yesterday voted against the resolution of my col league, for I foresaw the very difficulties in which we are now involved; and I take the occasion to say, that I voted against the resolution of the gentleman from Virginia for another reason, and that was, I desired a different mode of proceeding than the one contemplated by it. If I had been called upon to vote upon the resolution of the gentleman from Virginia on the first day of our meeting, I would have voted in the affirmative. I thought that those members from New Jersey who held the cer tificates of the Governor of their State were enti tled to take their seats, and to hold them until it should be shown that the contesting claimants had a better title. I desired that course of proceeding in order to give efficiency to our organization; but the House thought proper to take a different course. I thought it due to the country, to our own dignity, and to a sovereign State of this Union, that the certificates of her constituted authorities should be received as prima facie evidence; and I regret that a triumphant party, flushed with its recent victories in different sections of the Union, should have taken a different course. They have thought proper to take a course different from the one I approved of, and we are now involved in difficulties very little creditable to an American Congress. It is true that the House has already 1 thought proper to bring forward, in an informal Each House shall be the judge of the elections, retoras, and qualifications of its own members,” It will be perceived that the Constitution, in this clause, makes three distinct subjects on which this House is entitled to decide. I contend that they are, in their very nature, distinct questions. It may decide that a member is returned, and that he is, under the Constitution, totally disqualified. Suppose you judge of the returns of a member who is under twenty-five years of age, or an alien: he may have a majority, and not be entitled, under the Constitution, to take his seat. So we may decide that a member is entitled to the returns, because he has a majority of the polls, and yet not be legally elected, because that majority was made up of persons who had no right to vote. la the progress of this case, we have seen one notorious fact is admitted. It is admitted by the papers, and admitted by the gentlemen from New Jersey themselves, that a majority of the votes of the people of New Jersey were given to other members than those claiming their seats under the certificates of the Governor. That fact was admitted by them, with one qualification; and that was, that that majority was made up of illegal votes. This admission, therefore, is giving up the whole question. Who decided that they were not legal votes? Was it the Governor? the clerk? Sir, I lay down this broad proposition, and challenge a reply: that there is no officer or State authority whatever, who cin decide upon the legality of votes, after they are once deposited in the ballot boxes. You may challenge votes at the polls, as is done in the State of Virginia; but the proposition I contend for is this Mr. WISE here asked permission to make an explanation. Mr. PICKENS, in continuation. I will yield the floor for an explanation, but I protest against the practice of many gentlemen, for the last two years, of taking the advantage of being allowed to make an explanation, and then making an argument instead of it. Mr. WISE said there was a law of the State of Virginia appointing a commission to purge the polls-not at the time and place of the elections, but within a given number of days thereafter. Mr. PICKENS continued. I admit the proposition of the gentleman from Virginia. I admit that the State of Virginia has taken upon herself to purge the votes after they have been received into the ballot boxes. I ask if that is the naked proposition? and if so, I am prepared to demonstrate the unconstitutionality of it. Mr. WISE made a brief explanation, which, from the noise prevailing, the Reporter did not hear. It related principally to the manner of voting in Virginia, which is viva voce. Mr. PICKENS resumed. The proposition I mantain is, that, under that clause of the Constitution I have just quoted, we are created, in the very terms of the Constitution, the sole and exclusive judges of the returns; and if any State authority interferes to purge the polls, after the votes have been deposited in the ballot boxes, or after they have been given, viva voce, if you please, as in the State of Virginia, (unless he does it for the purpose of ascertaining whether the votes have the qualifications requisite for the most numerous branch of the State Legislature,)-unlesshe does it to carry out that provision of the Constitution, it it is a monstrous violation of the rights of this House. Here let me observe, in reflecting upon this clause, that it strikingly displays the wisdom of those who framed this instrument. Suppose a contrary result, and that the Constitution gave to the State authorities the power of judging of the returns of the Representatives? This House would be at the mercy of this or that con flicting party in every State. It was essential to In offering this proposition, I have acted solely own judgment, and have not been influenced by party drill or the dictates of a caucus. [Mr. P. after portraying in forcible language the evils flowing from party spirit, said, that for many years past there had been too strong an Executive action in this Government, and that it was time for the Representatives of the people to spurn at Executive dictation, and assert their own independence. It was time, he said, that they should redeem the House from a base subserviency to that monster god, party, and to look with a single eye to the welfare of the country.] Own I have introduced the resolution, Mr. P. continued, to meet the case before the House. I maintain that we are, by the Constitution, the exclusive judges of the returns of our members, and that there is no concurrent jurisdiction in any State, Governor, or Legislature; and, in maintaining these principles, I maintain the principles that are essential to the preservation of American liberty. The propositions I lay down are, 1. That this House is the sole and exclusive judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members; 2. That no State officers have the right to take into consideration the legality of the votes after they have been deposited in the ballot boxes; and, 3. That those who have the majority of the votes have a right to the returns. Upon these principles I "oted against Mr. INGERSOLL's right to vole. The majority of the votes were given to his opponent, Mr. NayLOR; and, though it was contended that this majority was the result of fraud, I voted against Mr. INGERSOLL because I believed that the judges had no right to throw out the votes, because they deemed them fraudulent-that in to doing, they were usurping the powers of this House. When the question, however, comes up to be finally decided between the two gentlemen, I will meet it, and decide according to the evidence before me; but I protest against the right of the officers of the State of Pennsylvania to judge of the legality of votes, after they have been deposited in the ballot boxes. I know, said Mr. P. the delicacy of the position I occupy. I know that the course I have adopted may be misunderstood, and perhaps censured; but I would not wear the proudest jewel on a monarch's brow, if I could not wear it unshackled. There is no sentiment I ever proclaimed in the closet, that I would not proclaim to the world. I am prepared to meet this question frankly, boldly, fearlessly; and I am willing to go into it now. Mr. P. here read the following resolution: Resolved, That the committee to be raised on the New Jersey elections, be confined to the question who is entitled to the "returns" of elec ions for the Twenty-sixth Congress. Mr. CRAIG rose to a point of order. The House had decided that it would proceed to the election of a committee, and he would submit to the CHAIR whether it was in order for gentlemen to offer other propositions. Let us (said Mr C.) go into the election of the committee, and afterwards let the gentlemen from South Carolina make their propositions. I subscribe (said Mr. C.) heartily to all the gentleman's doctrines, and go for the whole of them. Mr. HOLMES of S. C. then addressed the House in a very able and lucid argument in support of Mr. PICKENS'S resolution; and Mr. RHETT followed in a powerful address in opposition to it. [From the lateness of the hour we are unable to give sketches of these gentlemen's remarks, but they will be given in full shortly.] After Mr. REIT concluded his remarks, Mr. LEWIS gave notice that he would move a reconsideration of the vote on Mr. RHETT's resolution, provided Mr. PICKENS's resolution should be lost. Mr. CRABB then gave notice that he wonld move a reconsideration of the vote ordering the appointment of a committee, in case a reconside ration should be ordered of Mr. RHETT's resolution. On motion of Mr. WISE, IN SENATE, FRIDAY, December 12, 1839. Mr. CLAY of Kentucky presented the credentials of the Hon. JOHN HENDERSON, elected by the Legislature of the State of Mississippi a Senator from that State, to serve for six years from the 4th of March last. The usual oath was administered to Mr. HENDERSON, and he took his seat. The following resolution, offered yesterday by Mr. LINN, lays over: Resolve, That the President of the United States be requested to send to the Senate all the information in his possession relating to the southern boundary line of the Territory of Iowa. The Senate then adjourned. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The journal of yesterday having been read, Mr. WISE rose to propose an amendment to the journal. The journal stated that the gentleman from New Jersey moved that a paper, purporting to be a protest of gentlemen claiming seats from New Jersey, be entered upon the journal. He contended, that as the yeas and nays were taken on the motion to enter the protest on the journal, the protest must of consequence go on the journal. The gentleman from New Jersey had moved that the following paper (the protest) be entered on the journal, and when the question was taken on that by yeas and nays, it was a settled rule of the House that the paper referred to must go on the jounal. Mr. VANDERFOEL said that the House had reject d the motion of the g ntleman from New Jersey on yesterday, to enter the protest on the,ournal; and, consequently, it was not put on the journal of yesterday. If no objection had been made to spreading the protest on the journal in the first instance, he took it for granted that the cling of the yes and nays woul! have placed it on the journal; but objection having been made, an the House having adjudicated on the matter, the CLERK was not authorized to disregard the solemn decision of the House, when the House itself had said that the paper should not go on the journal. Suppose this protest had been disrespectful and insulting to the House, would gentlemen say that we were compelled to enter it on the journ I, beCause a single member of the House had moved that it should be placed upon the journal? Mr. CINN desired to i now of some of the old members whether it was customary, n such cases as this, to enter papers on the jou nal. Mr DROOMGUOLE would show some precedent on this subject. Prev ously to doing so, however, he would premise that the journal of the House had ben made out, and in accordance with the rule of the House, submitted to the presiding officer of the body for his inspection and revision, before it was read this morning. He therefore presumed that it had passed the ordeal of the inspaction of the CHAIRMAN, and had been approved by him. Then, in support of that opinion of the CHAIR, for the CHAIR had certainly approved of the journa', he begged leave to read a few precedents. Mr. D. then referred to the journals of the House, where Mr. Garnet had proposed to enter a propositio on the journal in relation to the South American Republics, and a question was taken upon it, yet the propo ition had not been entered upon the journal. He also referred to a case where Gen. Glascock and two other gentlemen moved to spread their views on the journal, with regard to Mr. Pinckney's resolutions on the subject of Abolition pet tiors, and a question was taker, yet their views were not spread on the journal. Gat stress had been p t by bis colleague on the call of the yeas and nays, he having contend dh t that call compelled the House to enter the pro'est on the journal; but he would ask gentlemen whether the call of the yeas and nays either added to or diminished the power of the House. The protest was no part of the proceedings of the House, and he would ask whether the mere call of the yeas and nays would compel the House to spread it upon the journal. Mr. WISE. If my colleague will give way, I will state my object. Mr. DROMGOOLE. I believe I know the object of my colleague. I will not, however, say of him, as he s id of me yesterday, that I know him of old-for we are both young men -[laughter]but I believe his object to be to get on the journal of to-day, indirectly, what the gentleman from New Jersey could not get on the journal of yesterday directly. I think i see the drift of my colleague; but I shall endeavor to show that it would involve the House in absurdity to adopt the course contended for by my colleague. I will rot read the proceedings in the case which I am about to refer do, because they are familiar to every gentleman here. It will be recollected by gentlemen that the President of the United States, a few years ago, sent to the Seate a protest against certain action of the Senate, and asked that it be entered on their journal. He was not a member of the Senate; neither were the persons who presented this paper here members of this House. So far there was a similarity in the two cases. Well, after the protest of the President was read in the Senate of the United States, that body refused to receive it, and refused to enter it upon their journal, and no legislative device of the friends of the Fresident could get it on the journal. After that protest was rend in the Senate, various motions were made, with a view of getting it on the journal, an 1 the yeas and nays called; yet the Senate never would permit it to go on the journal on their metion, because they did not wish to involve themselves in the absurdity of putting on the journol that which they decided should not go upon it. The House decided on yesterday that this protest should not go on the journal; and will they permit now, to go upon it in the shape of an amendment of the journal, that which they decided should not go upon it yesterday. If the House intended to act consistently, there was no other means of placing this protest upon the journal, but by moving to reconsider the vote of yesterday. Mr. WI-E then submitted a resolution that the following paper be entered on the journal of yesterday, to wit: We, the undersigned, Representatives of the State of New Jersey, duly commissioned as such in conformity with the laws of the said State, having been in part excluded from our privileges in this meeting of the members of the House of Representatives, deem it our dut to place lefo e this bod, and the country our views with respect to the rights of our tate and of cureles, and the powers and duties of this meeting. We therefore affirm, in the presence of the moners of the House of Representatives here assein' led an of the whole American people, the truth of the following p opositions: 1. That, by the Constitution of the United States each State has the power to p escribe by law the time, place, and manner of hol ing elections for its own Representat ves in Congress; which power includes the right of prescribing the time, place, and manner of ascertaining and inaking known the result to Congress and the world. 2. That the determination of the State authorities authenticated in the manner prescribed by the State laws, is the only evidence of the election of members of the House of Representatives which can be received rrior to the organization of the House; and is final and conclusive until reversed by the House itself, duly organized. 3. That no one who cannot produce the evidence of his election, prescribed by the laws of his State, is entitled to take a seat in the Honse of Representatives; and no one who does produce such evidence can be excluded before an investigation by the House, without a gross violation of the Constitution of the United States and the rights of the States themselves. 4. That the Fouse of Representatives cannot be constitutionally organizel no a quorum fo med until all the States of the Ton have had an oppo tunity to aprear by all their Renesentatives; and that a constitutional quo un is not me ely a majority of the Representatives elect after the arbitrary exclusion of othe members on any pretext whatever, but a majo ity of all the members from all the States, after each State has had an opportu nity to appear by her Representatives, and to con stitute a pa t of that quo:um. 5. That the body here assembled, havin? no judicial powe s, possessing no means of sending for pe sons and papers, not legally authorized to examine witnesses under oath, and exp essly forbid den by law to go into the consideration of any business before the House is organized, and the oath to suppo t the Constitution administered to its members, cannot exe cise the higest judicial function belonging to the House of Representativesthat of receiving and reversing the decisions of the State antho ities in relation to their own elections; and that its only power is to require the peradoe appea ing here as membe s to produce the cn sr tials p esc ibed by the laws of their respective States. 6. That the State of New Jersey having by law prescribed the time, place, and manner of holding elections, and also the time, place, and manner of masing known the result, and having for this pu pose selected the highest kind of evidence known to the Constitution, to the common law, to the Parliamentary law, and to the laws of nations-a commission under her great seal and signed by the Executive-has thus made known to Congress and to the wold that we are her Representatives in the 20th Congress. This buty having, in derogation of the principles above affirmed, refused in part to recognise our credentials, and that upon the authority of a paper which, emanating from an officer not recognised by the laws of New Jersey regulating elections, and therefore not under the sanction of an official oath, stating merely inferences from other papers, themselves not evidence, being ex parte affidavits, taken without authority of law, and without notice to us, and proved by the law itself to be false upon its face, could not be received as proof of the facts it asserts in any court of record in the Union; and an intention being manifested to carry further this result to our State, and to consummate the outrage upon her rights, by excluding us, her Representalives, from taking part in the organization of the House, we, in the name of our State, and of ourselves, and in behalf of our common country, and of all the other States whose rights are outraged in the violation of ours, do most solemnly protest against any such usurpation of power by this boly, and do utterly disclaim its right to do an act which wil: be a bolder and more flagrant violation of the Constution of the United States, and of the laws and rights of the States themselves, than has ever yet been attempted in this country. WASHINGTON, Dec. 12, A. D. 1839. JNO. B AYCRIGG, CHARLES C. STRATTON, J. P. E MAXWELL, J. HALSTED, T. JONES YORKE. Mr. DROMGOOLE rose to a point of order. Mr. WISE thought his colleague's point would turn out to be a "point no point." Mr. DROMGOOLE submitted a point of order. Under the rule, the judgment of the House is to stand until it is reversed, and can only be reversed by a motion to reconsider; therefore, could his course reverse the decision of the House, without reconsidering the vote of yesterday? Mr. WISE then referred to decisions under the late Speaker of the House, to show that papers had been entered upon the journal in cases where the yeas and nays had been called, and where the House decided that they should not go on the jour nal. Mr. W. stated that this rule of proceeding had been admitted by the gentleman from New York on yesterday, and he contended that it was the only protection of minorities to adhere strictly to rules. Mr. W. referred to a variety of prece dents in the course of his remarks, and concluded by moving the previous question on his resolution. Mr. DAVIS moved to lay the motion of the gentleman from Virginia on the table. Mr. BRIGGS inquired of the CHAIR if the reso lution of the gentleman from Virginia would not go on the journal of to-day, whether his motion prevailed or not? The CHAIR stated that the journal of yesterda had been made up as usual in such cases, omitting the protest; but as a motion had been made to-day embracing that paper, according to the decisions of the two last Speakers of the House, that paper would go on the journals of to-day. Mr. DROMGOOLE appealed from this decision, so that it might be seen whether the House would sustain this course of proceeding. Mr. TILLINGHAST then referred to a rule of the House, which had been adopted since the cases referred to by the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. DROMGOOLE, by which, he contended, a paper must be entered on the journal, when submitted in the shape of a motion by a member of the House, and the yeas and nays were ordered upon it. Mr. TURNEY would inquire whether the House was now about to adopt a rule by which a member might spread upon the journals any paper coming from individuals out of the House. If you adopt this rule of action, you put it in the power of any one member of the Hou e to incorporate in a motion every Abolition petition which may come to this House, and you will be compelled to enter them at large upon your jeu nals, notwithstanding you may I have adopted a resolution declaring that they shall not be read and received by the House. He hoped gentlemen would reflect on this matter before they adopted such a precedent as this. Mr. HOFFMAN contended that every pr posi tion should be entered upon the journal, upon which members were called to vote by yeas and nays, in order that their constituents might be correctly informed in relation to their votes. Mr. PETRIKIN rose, and moved the previous question on the appeal. Mr. HOFFMAN here raised a question as to whether the appeal was in order. The gentleman had only made an nquiry of the CHAIR, and, upon the answer to that inquiry being given, he had appealed without the CHAIR having made any formal decision. a Mr. DROMGOOLE said that the motion of his colleague was not a motion to amend the journal #of yesterday, but it was simply a motion to do that indirectly to-day which the House refused to do directly yesterday. # Mr. WISE. I stated that I made a motion to amend the journal in this way-by incorporating the protest in my resolution. Get that off the journal if you can. Mr. DAVIS of Ia. inquired whether his motion to lay on the table would not lay the whole question on the table. If so, he moved to lay the whole matter on the table. Mr. MERCER wished to know if a motion to lay the journal on the table would not prevent us from keeping a journal. The CHAIR said certainly not; for when this question is disposed of, any other motion may be made with regard to the journal. Mr. BYNUM. Can a member of the House do that indirectly which another member has been prohibited from doing directly? The CHAIR. The gentleman must answer that question himself. [Laughter ] Mr. SERGEANT rose to a question of order, and was stating it at considerable length, and referring to the proceedings of the House, when Mr. BYNUM called him to order, because he was go ng on to debate the question in the very face of the rule. Mr. SERGEANT then asked if the motion to lay on the table was in order. The CHAIR. The gentleman has with'rawn that motion. Mr. DAVIS. No, sir, I have repeated it two or three times. Mr. PETRIKIN asked whether, if the motion to lay on the table prevailed, the journal of yesterday would be laid on the table. The CHAIR replied that it would not, but that all the questions which had been raised this morning would. Mr. TURNEY inquired if the motion to lay on the table took precedence of the appeal taken by the gentleman from Virginia. The CHAIR said the motion to lay on the table took precedence. Mr. WISE said the gentleman's motion em braced all the appeal-the amendment of the journal and 11. Mr. MERCER here raised a question of order as follows: "A motion being made to amend the journal of the House, while the journal was passing before the House for correction, the CHAIRMAN decided that should the motion to amend be laid on the table, the journal does not accompany." Mr. M. appealed from this decision, and called for the yeas and nays; but the House refused to order them, and the decision of the CHAIR was sustained almost unanimously. The yeas and nays were then called on Mr. DAVIS's motion to lay on the table, and were-yeas 103, nays 119. So the House refused to lay the question on the table. Mr. DROMGOOLE. I presume now my question on the appeal comes up. Mr. WISE asked if, by the votes already taken, his resolution was not placed on the journal. Mr. PETRIKIN renewed the motion to lay the appeal on the table. Mr. DROMGOOLE then submitted a point of order, that the journal could not be altered under pretence of amendment. Mr. WISE objected to his colleague's point of order, that it stated what was not true. He ojected to any one putting words into his mouth by color, by paint, or by whitewash. Mr. SMITH of Maine thought it was very sin gular if they could not keep of their journal any figures, characters, or words, the had expressed a determination should not be placed on it. Mr PETRIKIN asked the CHAIRMAN whether he would put the quest oa on a motion offered by hm or not. He had called for the previous question three or four times, and the CHAIRMAN, with an obstinacy peculiar to himself, refused to put the question to the House. He wished to now, on behalf of himself and his constuents, how long this cur e was to be pe's s ed in. Mr. DROMGOOLE then sa d tha', if his p oposition was not im lar to the one heret fore adopted, he would w the aw the former, and now offer it in the following words: "Mr. W se of Virginia moved to amend the journal, by inse ting thereon a paper presented on yesterday by Mr. RANDOLPH, which the House refused to enter on the journal. Mr. DROMGOOLE made a point of order, that it is not in order, under color of amending the journal, to propose to insert said paper, the decision for yesterday being still in force." Mr. PETRIKIN. And on that I call the previous question. The CHAIRMAN will now un lerstand me, I hope. The CHAIRMAN decided that Mr. DROMGCOLE'S proposition was not in order. Mr. DROMGOOLE. From that decision I appeal. Mr. PETRIKIN. And on that appeal I demand the previous question; which was seconded. Mr. DROMGOOLE demanded the ayes and noes, which were ordered. Mr. UNDERWOOD movel to lay the whole subject on the table, which was carried in the affirmative. So the whole subject of amending the journals, and incidental questions, were laid on the table. The CHAIR stated that there were two privileged questions. The first was the motion of the member from Alabama [Mr. LEWIS] to reconsider the resolution of the member from South Carolina [Mr. RHETT ] Mr. LEWIS said that it was not his intention to press his motion at this time, but gave notice that if the resolution of the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. PICKENS] was defeated, he would call it up. The CHAIRMAN stated that the next proposition was that of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr CRABB] to reconsider the resolution of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. DROMCOOLE ] Mr. CRABB said, he did not call up his motion to reconsider the resolution of the hon rable memember from Virginia who sits behind him, [Mr. DROMGOOLE,] because he cons dered that, under one of the rules of this House, it comes up of course after the disposition just made of the prior mot on of his honorable colleague, [Mr. LEw.s.] He desired that such should be the course, for he was anx.cus that his motion should now te con si e ed and acted on by the House. Mr. C. considerei it due to himself, before the question was t ken, to submit a few remarks in explanation of his course. He was not in the habit of tr. ubling the House in this way, preferring, as he did, to c ntent himself with the explanation which his votes would give upon all quest:ons of interest. But such had been the fact, that, pr or to the call of the rull, many votes had teen taken by tellers merely, which course left no traces of his opinions as expressed by the votes he thus gave. Without an explanation, therefore, his later votes, which appeared upon the journal, would misrepresent his true sentiments, ani, so far as his first votes were known to members, present an iconsistency. He therefore embraced this occasion to say that his mind had undergone no change on the questi n. He came here with the opinion which he still entertained, that the claimants fr m New Jersey, having credentials in conformity with the laws of that State, just as he came with the commission of the Governor of Alab ma, pursuant to the law of that State, were, equally with himself, entitled, temporar ly, to take their seats n this floor, and participate in the organization of the House. This was his opinion when he entered this hall, and this cpini remaine i unchanged. But the House rejected the proposition of the gent eman from Virginia, [Mr. Wise, dec aring his (Mr. C's) opinions on this plain propositio, thereby showing, as he lien e nceived, a majority of the body adverse to his own well founded view of the correct cour e to be par-red. What, then, was to be done, and yet to avoid that cour e upon this floor, which might wel be denominated faction? Why, surely, to ad pt the next be t proposition. He discovered, he hought, that proposition in the one offered by the ho orab'e gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. RHETT,] which p'edged the House, before it wou d go into an election of Speaker, to inquire in o and determine who are e: tit ed to seats on this floor as Representatives from New Jersey. This, onder the circums ances, was the nex: best course 'hat cou'd be pursued, and therefore he su, ported it. Hes pported then o, osition of the honorable gen lena from Virginia, [Mr. DROMGOOLE.erely as a coveriet and expedient mode of carrying out the resolution offered by the gent eman rom South Carolina, [Mr. RHETT,] and ado, ted by the House ་ But ha ha e we row heard, said Mr C. on this floo? In tead of an adherence to the rinciples which he considered as settled by a majority of the Hou e in re ec ing the re olution offered by the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. WISE,] the honorabe gentleman from South C ro ina [Mr. RHETT yesterday submitted views which he (Mr. C.) could not consider otherwise than inconsistent with the previous coure of that honorable gen leinan. He said this in a proper spirit, and not with a view of censing in the least he course of the gentleman, but mere y the be ter to account for and explain his (Mr. C's) own course. He yielded with great pleasure to that ge. temn, and eve y other, the same ; rivilege he claimed for himself,of pursuing his own course, in his wn way, uninfluenced by the dictation of any other person or body o' persons. But that gentleman formed one of the small majority which had, on a former day of the session, rejceted by his vote the conectness of his (Mr. C's) views, and now exp essed opinions, which, if flowed ut, could but lead to a different course. What then became his (Mr. C's) duty? Certainly to rctrace his steps, taken correctly under the circumsiances as they appeared at the time but which he now had reason to hope, and believed, with the aid of the honorable gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. RHETT,] the House would be induced to retrace, and thereby lace us once more upon the true ground, where the House could d at once, and while it was yet in time, what had been his original opinion, and which had undergone Lo charge from the arguments he had heard: that is to say, proceed to organize the House, permitting the people of New Jersey to be represented, for the time, by those who come here under the authority of her laws, and through the instrumentality of her Governor, who, in the language of the honorable gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. RHETT,] is the only organ of communication upon this subject, between that State and this House. He deemed, with that gentleman, the Governor of that State to be the only legal organ; the only voi e hat the House could properly recognise in this stage of the proceeding; but if a majority of the House should persist, as he had understood them heretofore to decide, he should on this, as on all similar occasions, bow with respect to the will of the majority. Mr. C said he had a word to say in relation to the resolution which his honorable friend from South Carolina [Mr. PICKENS] proposed to offer. He agreed with him that the direct and proper question for decision by the House at this time, was the question of return, and not the question of election. The Constitution separates these questions, and they must be decided as they arise before the House. That gentleman admits that the question now before the House, is the question of return; but, says he, not who are returned, but who ought to have been returned. He considered that his friend, by his resolution, varied the direct question as contained in the Constitution itself. That instrument gives this House the power to judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of gentleman presenting themselves here as claimants to seats on this floor. The first question that necessarily arises at the commencement of each Congress, is, who are returned? After this, if any contest is instituted, the question arises as to the election or qua'ifiation, as the case may be, of the member returned. Now the resolution of the bonorable gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. PICKENS] proposes that this Hou e shall inquire into who ought to have been returned from New Jersey; not who is returned. If this be the proper question on the subject of returns, push the reasoning another step, to the election; and the question, by parity of logic, would be, not who is elected, but who ought to have been elected. Do not gentlemen see the effect of such reasoning, and that it will lead them into an absurd constraction of the powers of this House on this subjec:? And do they not perceive that the question of who ought to have been returned, is precisely coextensive and identical with the question of who is el ctea? He would say, also, that his views on this question did not commit him in the least on the merits of the question of election. Whenever that question came legitimately before the Hose, after it shall be organ zed, the members sworn, &c. he should go into that question without prejudice, and prepared, he hop d, to decide it on correct and constitutional principles. He had said this much under an imperious sense of duty to himself, and that his friends here and elsewhere might understand the impulses under which he had acted. He gene ally preferred si'ence to a mingling in the general debates of the House, because he was averse to the unnecessary consumption of precious time by the almost interminable debates which are witnessed on this floor. He had troubled the House on this occassion for another pur ose: to declare, what he conceived to be the duty of every true Republican, his disposi tion to submit, with profound respect, to the c'early expressed will of a majority, on all occ:sions where the Constitution does not guaranty" rights to a minority. Any other curse he deemed factious and highly improper; in which respect he was not, and never would, he hoped, become a pa ty man. Party, as regards prin iples, was light and proper in itself. There was not a more sublime spectacle than high sacriticing devotion to principle; but party ties, and party devotion, for self-agg andizement, and me:e party purp ses, call it what you will, was but mere faction at last, and greatly disreput ble to any body of individuals. He hoped his moti n to reconsider wou d prevail; that his hon r ble colleague's [Mr. LEWIS] would also and that the House would wace its steps to what he conceived, with due deference for all who differ from him, to be the constitutional and only correct view of the subject. Mr. WISE obtained the floor, and said that if he could be assured by gentlemen on both sides that they would reconsider the vote for the appointment of a committee, and come directly to the vote on the returns, upon the evidence now before the House, he would yield the floor. If gentlemen on all sides would say now, that they would reconsider the vote appointing this committee, and at once take up a resolution to determine the question whether either one set or the other of the New Jersey members should take their seats, he would be silent, and beg gentlemen also on all sides to be silent. [Cries of agreed, agreed, on all sides.] Mr. W. then recapitulated the terms of his proposition, and there was a general assent to it on all sides, with the exception of Mr. TURNEY, who said, I for one will not agree to this proposition. it. Mr. WISE resumed. Gentlemen have now had a fair proposition made them, and they have rejected Let us now hear no more about the responsibility of keeping this House from organization, and from proceeding to the public business. A gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. TURNEY,] one of the accredited leaders of the Administration party, objects to the fair propos tion I have made, and it falls to the ground. [Much noise and confusion, and loud cries of "Mr. TURNEY withdraws his objections," while others were heard crying "go on, go on."] Mr. TURNEY here rose and said that he withdrew his objection at the solicitation of his friends. Mr. WISE. There is so much confusion that I am in doubt what to do; several gentlemen around me call upon me to go on with the debate, while others tell me that they will a cede to my proposition. The gentleman from Tennessee objecting- [Here Mr. WISE was interrupted by several gentlemen, and told that Mr. TURNEY had withdrawn his objection] Mr. WISE. Will gentlemen, then, agree that we shall enter at once upon the credentials, and that these resolutions shall be considered as rescinded? Will gentlemen consent to take the direct vote? [Cries of "yes, yes," on all sides ] The CHAIR then put the question on rescinding the resolution of Mr. DROMGOOLE, and it was car ried in the affirmative unanimously. Mr. WISE. Then I offer the following resolution, and call for the previous question on it: Resolved, Th tJ. BANKER AYCRICG, J. P. B. MAXWELL, WILLIAM HALSTED, CHARLES C. STRATTON, and THOMAS JONES YORKE, are entitled to the r seats. Mr. PICKENS said he asked it as a personal favor that the gentleman from Virginia would insert the constitutional word "returns,' in his resolution. Mr WISE. No sir, no sir. Mr. CRAIG then moved a call of the House, which was seconded on all sides, and carried. The names of the members having been then called over by the CLERK, it was ascertained that there were four or five absentees, among whom was Mr. HAWES of Kentucky. Mr. WHITE informed the House that Mr. HAWES was absent from sickness, and moved that he be excused. Mr. CRAIG moved that the absentees be sent for; which was carried. Mr. WISE said if gentlemen would permit it at this time, when they were doing nothing, he would modify his resolution. Some gentlemen arou d him seemed to think that his resolution settled the final question as to the scats of the memhers from New Jersey, and he would therefore withdraw his resolution and offer the following, for which he found a precedent in the proceedings of the House. Resslved. That the cedentia's of the following members, J. BANKER AYCRYGG, J. P. B.MAXWELL, WM. HALSTED, CHARLES C. STRATTON, and THоMAS JONES YORKE, are sufficient to en'it e them to take seats in the Hou. e, leaving the question of contested election to be afterwards decided by the House. Mr. PICKENS objected to the change in the form of the resolution, because it changed the issue, There was but a shadow of difference be tween the original and substitute; but in these times, Mr. P. said, shadows count. Mr. WISE replied, that he only bound himself to offer a direct proposition; and the resolution he now offered was as much so as the original. Mr. UNDERWOOD hoped the previous ques tion might not be carried. He should vote against the last proposition, as well as against the original, and hoped the House would not second the call for the previous question. After some few remarks from Mr. WISE, Mr. UNDERWOOD asked if the call for the previous question had been seconded by the House, and demanded that the question on seconding the call be put now. Mr. PICKENS observed that he had not the slightest objections himself to voting on the resolu tion as modified. He understood the gentleman to read the resolution to the House as part of his proposition, and he [Mr. P.] then objected to the language of it, and requested the gentleman to insert the constitutional word "returns," which he refused to do. The very slight change made by the gentleman in the resolution, might affect the votes of one or two gentlemen; and it was for this reason he opposed it. He might be mistaken; but his understanding was, that the original resolution, as offered by the gentleman from Virginia, was a part of the proposition that was acceded to on all sides. man. Mr. WISE. I will ease the fears of the gentleI understand he had a resolution ready to offer yesterday, providing that Mr. DICKERSON and his associates should take their seats as members from New Jersey. Now I will make a fair proposition to the gentleman. I will withdraw my reso lution, and let him offer his in its stead. Mr. PICKENS. 1 prefer the gentleman's resolution, because it is an affirmative proposition. On taking the vote, the call for the previous question was seconded by the House. The question, "hall the main question be now put?" was then taken, and it was decided in the affirmative. The main question was then taken by yeas and nays, and it was decided in the negative-yeas 117, nas 117, as follows: YEAS-Mess19. Adams, Alford, John W. Allen, Simeon II Anderson. Andrews, Barnard, Bell, Biddle, Black, Bond. Botts, Buggs, Brockway, Arson Brown, Calhoun, John Campbell. Willi. m B. Cam, bell, Carter, Chinn, Christenden, Clark, Colquitt, James Cooter. Mark A. Cooper, Corwin, Crabb, Cranston, Crockett, Curtis, Cushing, Edward Davies, Garret Davis, Dawson, Deberry, Dermis, Dalett, Edwards Evans, Everett, Fillmore, James Garland, Rice Garland, Gates Gentry, Giddings, Goggin, Goode, Graham, Granger, Graves, Green, Grimmed. Habersham, Hail, William S. Hastings, Henry, Hill of Virginia, Roman, Hopkins, Hunt, Hunter, James, Jeni'er, Charles Johnston, Wm. C, Johnson, King, Lawrence, Lincoln, Marvin, Mason, Mercer, Mitchell, Monroe, Morgan, C. Morris, Naylor, Nisbet, Ogle, Osborn, Palen, Peck, Pope, Profit, Randall, Randolph, Rariden, Rayner, Reed, Rhett, Ridgway, Russell, Saltonstall, Sergeant, She pard, Simonton, Slade, Truman Smith, Stanly, Storrs Stuart, Taliaferro, Waddy Thompson, Tillinghast, Toland, Triplett, Trumbull, Underwood, Ieter J Wagner, Warren, Edward D. White, John White, Thomas W. Williams, Lewis, Williams, Joseph L. Williams, Christopher H. Williams, Sherrod Williams, and Wise-117. NAYS-Messrs. Judson Allen, Hugh J. Anderson, Ather ton, Banks, Beatty, Beirne, Blackwell, Boyd, Brewster, Aaron V. Brown, Albert G. Brown, Burke, Sampson H. Butler, William O. Butler, Bynum, Carr, Carroll, Casey, Chapman, Clifford, Coles, Conner, Crag, Crary, Cross, Dana, Davee, John Davis, John W. Davis, De la Montanya, Doan, Doig Droomgoole, Duncan, Earle, Eastman. Ely, Fine, Fisher, Fletcher, Floyd, Fornance, Galbraith, Gerry, Griffin, Hame mond, Hand, John Hastings, Hawkins, Hill of N. C. Hillen, Hollema, Holmes, Hook, Tilgham A. Howard, Hubbard, Jackson, Jameson, Joseph Johnson, Cave Johnsen, Nathaniel Jones, John W. Jones, Keim, Kemble, Leadbetter, Leet, Lean ard, Lewis, Lowell, Lucas, McClellan, McCulloh, McKay, Mal lory. Marchand, Medill, Miller, Mon'gomery, Saml W. Morris, Newhud, Parish, Parmenter, Parris, Paynter, Petrikin, Pick ens, Prentiss, Ramsey, Reynolds, Rives, Robinson, Edward Rogers, James Rogers, Samuels, Shaw, Albert Smith, John Smith, Thomas Smith, Starkweather, Steinrod, Strong, Sump ter, Swearingen, Sweeny, Taylor, Francis Thomas, Philip F Thomas, Jacob Thompson, Turney, Vanderpoel, David D. Wagener, Watterson, Weller, Wick, Jarad W. Williams, Hen ry Williams, and Worthington-117 So it was decided by the House that Messrs. AYCRIGG, MAXWELL, STRATTON, YORKE, and HASTED, shall not take their seats as Representatives from the State of New Jersey. Mr. SMITH of Maine then offered a resolution that the House would now proceed to the election of a Speaker. Mr. WISE. I ask if this is carrying out in fairness my proposition [Cries of "yes, yes-your resolution has been offered and decided against." |