Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

against a decree of discharge and the allowance of the certificate as hereinbefore provided. And if, upon a full hearing of the parties it shall appear to the satisfaction of the couri, or the jary shall find that the bankrupt has made a full disclosure and surrender of all bis estate as by this act required, and has in all things conformed to the directions thereof, the court shall make a decree of discharge and certify the same to the court below, whereupon the court below shall allow the same, and grant a cortificale as provided in the fourth section of this act."

This amendment also was adopted without a decision.

Upon the motion of Mr. RUGGLES, an amendmeni was then made as to the description and amount of property to be surrendered to the bankrupt and his family, and giving to the assignee and court certain discretion in that matter, but we did not take the particular contents of the proposition.

On motion of Mr. CRITTENDEN, the amount of debt requisite to entiile persons in general to the benefit of ibis bill, was not fixed at any sum, and for merchants, bankers, &c. it was fixed at $2,000 and above.

Mr. WALL offered two amendments (formal and technical) which were severally agreed io.

Mr. HUBBARD moved to confine the operation of the bill exclusively to future contracts, and called for the yeas and nays, which were ordered; and this amendment was rejected-yeas 14, nays 32, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Allen, Anderson, Calhoun, Cathbert, Hubbard, Linn, Lumpkin, Pierce, Prentiss, Robinson, Smith of Connecticut, Strange, Sturgeon, and Tappan–14.

NAYS—Messrs. Benton, Brown, Buchanan, Clay of Alabama, Clay of Kentucky, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Dixon, Fulton, Henderson, Huntington, King, Knight, Merrick, Mculon, Nicholas, Norvell, Phelps, Porter, Preston, Roane, Ruggles, Smith of Indiana, Southard, Tallmadge, Walker, Wall, Webster, While, Williams, and Young--32.

Mr. WALL, aft some remarks on the propriety of giving the appointment of the assignees to the creditors of the bankrupt, moved to recommit the bill, for the purpose of so modifying it, which was disagreed to-ayes 20, noes 26, as follows:

YEAS–Messrs. Allen, Anderson, Benton, Calhoun, Clay of Alabama, Cathbert, Fullon, Hub. bard, King, Linn, Lumpkin, Pierce, Roane, Robinson, Smith of Connecticut, Strange, Sturgeon, Tappan, Wall, and Williams-20.

NAYS—Messrs. Brown, Buchanan, Clay of Kentucky, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Dixon, Henderson, Huntington, Knight, Merrick, Mouton, Nicholas, Norvell, Phelps, Porter,Prentiss, Proston, Ruggles, Smith of Indiana, Southard, Talimadge, Walker, Webster, White, and Young_26.

Mr. HUBBARD then moved an adjournment, which was disagreed to---ayes 21, nays 26.

Mr. RUGGLES then moved to amend the bill by inserting a provision, declaring any attachment [ on mesne process null, which should be made sub

sequent to the passage of the bill, and to the deIriment of a portion of the creditors. The amendment was rejected-ayes 11, nays 35, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Davis, Knight, Romgles, Smith of Indiana, Southard, Tallmadge, Wall, Webster, White, Williams, and Wright-11.

NAYS_Messrs. Allen, Anderson, Benton, Brown, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay of Alabama, Clay of Kentucky, Clayton, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Dixon, Fulton, Henderson, Hubbard, Huntington, King, Linn, Lumpkin, Merrick, Mouton, Nicholas, Phelps, Pierce, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Roane, Robinson, Smith of Connecticut, Strange, Sturgeon, Tappan, Walker, and Young-35.

No further amendments being offered, the bill was reported to the Senate, and the amendments made in committee of The whole were concurred in.

The question then coming up on ordering the bill to be engrossed for a third reading, and the ayes and noes being ordered thereon,

Mr. WALL moved that the bill, as amended, should be printed; but this motion being declared !o be out of order, he moved to lay the bill on the

!

table, for the purpose of having it printed; which was agreed 10-ayes 24, nays 23, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Allen, Anderson, Benton, Brown, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay of Alabama, Cuthbert, Fulton, Hubbard, King, Linn, Lumpkin, Pierce, Prentiss, Roane, Robinson, Smith of Connecticut, Strange, Sturgeon, Tappan, Wall, Wright, and Young-24.

NAYS_Messrs. Clay of Kentucky, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Dixon, Henderson, Huntington, Knight, Merrick, Mouton, Nicholas, Norvell, Phelps, Porter, Preston, Ruggles, Smith of Indiana, Southard, Tallmadge, Walker, Webster, White, and Williams-23.

The Senate then went into Executive session for a short time, And then adjourned. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

TUESDAY, June 23, 1840. Mr. WISE asked the consent of the House to submit a joint resolution for the adjournment of both Houses of Congress sine die, on Saturday, the 111h day of July next.

Objection was made to its reception.

Mr. WISE moved to suspend the rules; and on that motion demanded the yeas and nays.

Mr. DAVIS of Indiana moved a call of the House; which was ordered, and proceeded in till 146 members answered to their names; when,

On motion of Mr. BRIGGS, all further proceeding in the call was dispensed with.

The yeas and nays having been ordered on the motion to suspend the rules, were taken, and were, yeas 75, nays 94.

So the House refused to suspend the rules.

Mr. ADAMS presented to the House from a work on political economy; which was, on his motion, ordered to be deposited in the Library of The House.

The CHAIR announced that the resolulions reported from the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, by Mr. McKay, was the first thing in order; which were read, as follows:

Resolved, That the Postmaster General be directed to pre. pare and report to the House, at the commencement of the next session, a list of all the post roads in the United States, with a diagram or diagrams, on which they shall be delineated, showing how long they have been in operation; the kind of ser: vice on each, whether on horseback, sulkey, stage, railronda, or in steamboats; the amount of receipts, and the cost of transportation on the same, respectively; also, showing the new routes named in the petitions and resolutions presented at the present session, with an esiimate of the probable expense of putting each of them in operation.

Resolred, That all petitions and memorials for the establi-h. ment of posi-road presented, and resolutions of inquiry for the same purpose, adopted at the present session, be referred to the Postmaster General for his information.

Resolved, That the Postmaster General be directed to prepare and report, at the same time, a list of all post-roads where ihe mails, though now carried in stages, might be carried on horseback, or in sulkeye, with the amount paid for the stage service, and the average cost of carrying similar mails on horso. bark or in sulkeys, in the sections of country where such routes may be respectively locate I.

The resolutions were agreed to.

Mr. BROWN of Mississippi, from the Commit. tee on the Post Office and Post Roads, reported back to the House, without amendment, Senate bill entitled an act for the relief of J. M. Strader; which was committed to the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. SIMONTON, from the Committee on the Judiciary, lo which had been referred the bill of the House entitled an act to regulate the fees of clerks, marshals, and attorneys of the Northern and Southern Districts of the State of Mississippi, reported it back with an amendment as a substilute; which was referred to the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. SIMONTON, from the same commitlee, 10 which had been referred the petition of Joseph Ramsey, in relation to a pension, made a report in which it was argued that Mr. R. was a party to the fraud; and the report was accompanied by a resolution that he was not entitled to any relief.

Mr. HOPKINS made some remarks, showing that Mr. R's claim to a pension was well esiablished; and that he was not a parly to the fraud which had deprived him of the pension obtained from the Government. He concluded by moving that the report be committed to the same committee, with instructions to report a bill for his relief.

Mr. SERGEANT opposed that motion, and

made some remarks showing that Mr. R. having given agents a power of attorney to obtain the pension from the Government, and those agents have ing defrauded him of the same, in equity he, and not the Government, should lose. He having given the power of attorney, was, though innocently so, to that extent a party to the fraud. Mr. S. concluded, by moving that the subject be referred to the Committee of the Whole.

On motion of Mr. SAMUELS, the report and papers were ordered to be printed.

Mr. STORRS, from the Committee on the Judi. ciary, reported a bill to authorize the judicial adjustment of the claim of the Municipality No. 1, of the city of New Orleans, to certain lands within said municipality; which was read twice, and Committed to the Committee of the Whole.

On motion of Mr. CRARY, the Committee on the Judiciary was discharged from the further consideralion of the resolution of the House, instructing that committee to inquire into the propriety of reporting a bill in relation to the apportionment under the census of 1840.

Mr. HALL, from the Committee on Revolutionary Claims, made unfavorable reports on the petitions of Charles Lewis, John Winston, Elipha. let Spafford, William Ruckman, John McCollan, and Richard Pauletts; which were severally ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. ELY, from the Committee on Revolutionary Claims, made unfavorable reports on the petitions of John Briggs, the representatives of William Slaughter, Dennis Purcel, the heirs of Captain John Stokes, Stephen Graham, deceased, and Captain Robert Vance; which were severally ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. CRAIG, from the same committee, made unfavorable reports on the petitions of Thomas Chapman, Lathrop Allen, Samuel Jones, Captain Trupley White, and Roger Staynor; which were severally ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. RANDOLPH, from the same committee, reported a bill for the relief of John H. Kelly, and a bill for the relief of the legal representatives of ane Fentenburgh, lale widow of Captain Hawkins Boone; which were read twice, and committed to the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, from the same committee, made unfavorable reports on the petitions of Francis Malone, Harriet Baker, Theodore Middlelon, Asa Clark, Henry Whiting; and Richard Mack; which were severally ordered lo lie on the table.

Mr. CASEY, from the Committee on Private Land Claims, reported a bill for the relief of George Mayfield; which was read twice, and committed to the Committee of the Whole.

Also reported back to the House, without amend. ment, Senale bill entitled an act for the relief of Joseph Bogy; which was committed to the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. R. GARLAND, from the same committee, reported a bill to confirm to the heirs and legal representatives of John Brown, deceased, their title to a tract of laud; which was read twice, and committed to the Committee of the Whole.

Also, reported back to the House, without amendment, Senale bill entiiled an act to confirm the claims to land in the districts between the Rio Hondo and Sabine rivers; which was committed to the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. WHITE of Louisiana, from the same committee, reported back to the House, without amendment, Senate bills, entitled

An act for the relief of George de Passo, of Louisiana;

An act for the relief of the heirs and legal representatives of William Conaway;

An act for the relief of James Smith of Arkansas;

An act confirming the claim of the heirs of Josenb Thompson, sr. deceased, to a tract of land in Missouri; and

An act for the relief of Henry Wilson; which were severally referred to the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. HASTINGS, of Massachusetts, from the Committee on Private Land Claims, reported a bill for the relief of the heirs of Joseph Erwin; and a bill for the relief of Hugh Riddle of the State of

1

In adverting to the history of the old United States Bank, he showed that it commenced in sraud, and said it was no wonder it should end in ruin. He reminded the committee that a great portion of the stock was purchased by men who, after their names were set down, immediately borrowed money from the Bank to pay for that stock--thus paying in the capital in the notes of the Bank itself. He also showed from authentic sources that instead of that institution acting as a regulator, at one period specie was selling at its own doors at a pre

mium.

New York; which were read twice, and committed to the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. H. also made unfavorable reports on the petitions of Silas Wells, Charles Holmes, and Stephen Howard; which were ordered to lie on the table; and on the petition of Thomas G. Smith, reported that the petitioner have leave to withdraw his petition.

On motion of Mr. WICK, the Committee on Private Land Claims was discharged from the further consideration of the petitions of Abraham Wayland and others, Amos Burdyne and George Williams, and that the latter bave leave to withdraw his petition.

Mr. W. also reported back to the House, from the same committee, without amendment, Senate bills entitled

An act for the relief of the legal representatives of Pierre Boohomme; and

An act for the relief of Thomas P. Copes; which were referred to the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. DILLET, from the same committce, reported a bill for the relief of the legal representatives of Lewis Durele; which was read iwice, and committed to the Committee of the Whole.

Also, made an unfavorable report on the petition of Maurice Wright; which was ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. ADAMS, from the Committee on Manufactures, to which had been referred' Senale bill entitled an act to regulale duties on the importation of the production of the fine arts, reported the same back to the House without amendment, and with a recommendation that it be indefinitely postponed.

Mr. A. then made some remarks in relation to the impropriety of the Senate originating such a bill-it being a revenue biil. After which,

The question was taken on the recommendation of the committee, that it be indefinitely postponed, and agreed to.

Mr. BELL, from the Committee on Indian Alfairs, reported back to the House, without amend. ment, Senate bill entitled an act for the relief of Jubal B. Hancock; which was committed to the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. B. also made unfavorable reports on the petitions of James Smith, Charles Lewis, and Thos. A. Walker; and it was ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. B. also reported from the same committee The following resolution, viz:

Resolved, That so much of the resolution of the House of the 7th March last, as declared the expediency of suspending the further execution of ihe first and second clauses of the fourth article of the treaty made with the Winnebago Indians in 1837, be rescinded.

Mr. CRARY moved to lay the resolution on the table, lill the committee shall have reporied on the subject committed to them for investigation; but he withdrew the motion at the suggestion of

Mr. BELL, who said the committee had just closed a most laborious investigation; and so soon as an abstract of the testimony (which was voluminous) shall have been prepared, the committee would make a full report. The committee had directed him to report, in part, this resolution. The comunittee did not believe there was suficieal evidence to justisy a new commission; but there were many things developed which they wire desirous to lay before the House, with their opinions thereon.

reason why they had directed bim to report in part, was that some of the claims were without exception, though they were very large; and he did not think there was sufficient evidence which would go to show that the smallest claim should be disa allowed. He believed that a great deal of injus. tice had been done these claiman's, and that there should be reparation without delay. He had not concluded, but the morning hour having expired,

On motion of Mr. JONES of Virginia, the House resolved itself into a Commiltee of the Whole (Mr. Banks in the chair) and resumed the consideration of the

INDEPENDENT TREASURY BILL. Mr. HOLLEMAN being entitled to the floor, resumed his remarks from last evening in support of the bill, and in exposing the fallacy of the argument adduced in favor of the re-establishment of a National Bank.

In ths course of his remarks, Mr. H. flanked his position against the Bank, by some poinied extracts from a speech of Mr. Webster in 1816 in favor of a system of hard currency, etc. and who said “the sooner that system was adopted the better.” He also caused to be read extracts of a similar character from speeches of Mr. Senator Rives in 1834, strongly recommending the measure, but who somehow had since wheeled round, and was now attacking the system with all his might. He, Mr. H. would not pretend to say what were The causes which produced this great change. Perhaps there were some private griefs, or disappointed expectations which had an agency in the matter.

Mr. H. then illustrated the disastrous results of the continued expansions and contractions of the currency under the banking system, and the injuriouis effects such a system produced on the laboring classes. [His remarks will hereafter appear in full.]

Mr. JENIFER then took the floor in opposition to the bill. He had not concluded at half past two o'clock, when the House took its usual recess.

EVENING SESSION. After the recess, the House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Banks in the Chair, on the

INDEPENDENT TREASURY BILL. Mr. JENIFER being entitled to the floor, resumed his remarks, expressing bis intention to oppose the bill. Before proceeding to do so, Mr. J. commenced an examination of the political course of several members of the House in relation to the bill. Among others, he referred to the course of Mr. Black of Georgia.

Mr. J. was repeatedly and loudly called to order by several members for irrelevancy in introducing papers, etc. having no connection with the subject under debate.

Mr. J. conlended that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. BLACK] bad been permitted to allude to the course of Col. Gamble, and that he had not been called to order for so doing.

Mr. BLACK stated thal, in his reference to Col. Gamble on a former day, he was strictly in order, as he was showing the vote of that gentleman on the Sub-Treasury bill of Mr. Gordon in 1834.

Mr. JENIFER then proceeded to make further allusions to the course of Mr. B. in relation to the bill under debate, when

Mr. BLACK rose and said that, if the committee permitted the gentleman from Maryland to attack his course on the Sub-Treasury bill, he trusted, as a matter of justice, he would be permitted to reply. Mr. PETRIKIN called Mr. B. to order. The CHAIR wished to know whether th

gentleman from Maryland yielded the floor to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. JENIFER replied that he had yielded the floor to the gentleman for the purpose of explanation.

Mr. BLACK said, no, not for explanation. My course needs no explanation. What I wish is, an opportunity to reply. I have no explanation to make; but I have a reply.

Alier some debate, of a conversational characler, Mr. BLACK resumed his seat, stating, however, that, at the close of the remarks of the gentleman from Maryland, he should demand, as an act of justice, an opportunity to reply to the attack.

Mr. JENIFER then resumed his remarks, and proceeded to make some allusions to the conduct of cerlain gentlemen who had attended a meeting at Bladensburg, in his State, on Saturday last, for the purpose of enlightening the people, &c. He was understood to regret that those gentlemen had not

given him notice of the meeting, that he might have extended to them the hospitality of his State. He, however, gave them an invitation to meet him there on the 4th of July.

The remarks of Mr. J. were delivered in so low a tone, that the Reporter was unable to comprehend their import, in many cases. Mr. J. was understood to charge that some of those who attended the above meeting had uttered "base calumnies," &c.

Mr. HOPKINS explained, that he, for one, had attended the meeting by invitation. It was the first time he had ever been there, and he found some very clever, warm-hearted people. Mr. H. then asked Mr. J. 10 state whether he applied the charge to all who attended, or whether he made any exception.

Mr. JENIFER was understood to disclaim having any allusion to Mr. H. and made some further remarks in relation to others, which it was impossible to hear.

Mr. J. then referred to the speech of Mr. STRONG as published in last evening's "Globe," on which he appeared desirous to make some comments. He begged first to ask Mr. S. whether there was any thing in the speech, as published, which was not delivered in the House.

Mr. STRONG explained that when, on a former day, he was addressing the committee, he was called to order by the Chair. In publishing bis speech, he had inserted what he intended to have said before he was so called to crder. Also, that he had inserted inose portions of the speech in such a way, that there would be no difficully in perceiy. ing how the case stood. He wished to know if the gentleman from Maryland was answered.

Mr. JENIFER then wished Mr. STRONG to inform him, whether the following portion of his speech was delivered in the House or not.

" This lesson throws a broad and strong light on the future. The view it affords is full of encouragement to the friends of popular liberty. It shows them that the people will act honestly and intelligently; that they will treat the "log cabin and hard cider” flummeries and fooleries of the Opposition with the scorn and the contempt they merit. It presents to their admiring gaze the entire and total rout and overtárow in the coming con. test of the combined factions of Abolitionism, Conservatism, political Antimaso iry, and Federalism, and the brilliant victory of Van Buren and Democracy."

Mr. STRONG replied in the affirmative, and that it was the concluding paragraplı of his speech.

Mr. JENIFER was then understood as expressing his iniention to proceed in the discussion of Abolitionism, etc.

The CHAIR decided that Mr. J. was out of or. der, on the ground that the discussion of Abolitionism, Conservatism, political Antimasonry, and log cabin and hard cider, was irrelevant to the subject under debate.

From ihis decision Mr. JENIFER, after making some remarks not distinctly beard, took an appeal.

The CHAIR then stated the ground of his decision, which was, that the gentleman from Maryland was going on to discuss Abolitionism, hard cider, leg cabins, etc. because the gentleman from New York had put those words into his speech, and that such a discussion would be out of order.

Some conversation here took place between Mr. STRONG and the CHAIR, on the subject of the paragraph alluded 10.

Mr. STRONG explained that the words there used had been delivered in the House, but were the concluding sentences of his speech, (which probably accounts for his not being called to order, as be fore the Chair could have risen, Mr. S. had rem sumed his seat.)

The CHAIR then informed the gentleman from Maryland that he could not le permitted to proceed in the discussion of such subjects.

The question being on the appeal

Mr. BARNARD rose for the purpose of propounding a question to the Chair as lo ihe state of The facis. His question was simply whether, be cause the gentleman from Maryland was not going on to say something about Abolitionism, on the

[ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

man, when

Continued from No. 30. ground that the gentleman from New York had referred to it in his speech

Several members here called Mr. BARNARD to or. Hi le der, and a scene of great confusion arose, which ', 2. lasted for some minutes.

After the disorder had somewhat subsided, Mr. =lh13 PROFFIT called for tellers on the appeal, which F.2 were ordered.

The question then being put as follows: “Shall Ens the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of Eiring the committee?!" The ages were 63. skan Mr. JENIFER here complained that his appeal

bad not been fairly stated, and on that he called ch: V upon his friends not to vote. Messrs. Proffit,

BARNARD, and others took the same ground, and called to their friends, "Do not let us vole.”'

Mr. JENIFER said he hoped no friend of his 1. so would yote.

The confusion and disorder was here renewed ku with increased violence, upwards of a score of mem

er bers being on their feet and attempting to speak at lart once.

The CHAIR again stated the grounds of his

decision, viz: That the gentleman was going on to be discuss Abolitionism, hard cider, etc. because the for gentleman from New York had referred to those 221177 subjects in the concluding paragraph of his speech, Net and that such was irrelevant, etc. Ender Mr. PROFFIT protested, in a loud voice, ps against this statenent, and denounced it as unfair.

Several members called Mr. PROFFIT to order, true and insisted that he should take his seat.

The question on the appeal was taken by tellers;

Messrs. BRIGGS and CHAPMAN of Alabama acted as antes such; and those opposed to the decision of the 16 Chair refusing to pass through the tellers, and their *** being no quorum of the affirmative votes,

The CHAIR had no alternative than to rise and !report the fact to the House.

!!The SPEAKER having resumed the chair, Los Mr. JENIFER was proceeding to refer to what les had occurred in committee, when he was called to Rue order by the SPEAKER, on the ground that there

could be no debale.

At the request of several members, the SPEAKER in counted the House, and a quorum appearing in ogs: Their seats, the House again resolved itself into ssss Committee of the Whole--Mr. Banks in the chair.

The question being on the appeal,

Mr. JENIFER contended that the Chair, in stating the ground of the appeal, had erred as to the fact. Mr. J. said he was not proceeding to discuss tae subject referred to in the speech of the genile. man from New York, but had inerely expressed his intention of so doing. When he was called to order

, he had not gone on to discuss them-he had not said a single word.

The CHAIR repeated that he had called the gentleman to order on the ground that he was pro. ceeding to discuss the subject of Abolition, etc.

Mr. BRIGGS coincided with the Chair as to what he believed were the facts of the case. The gentleman from Maryland, afier reading the paragraph from the speech of the gentleman from New York on the subject of Abolition, was then proceeding to speak upon it, when the Chair interfered, and he (Mr. B.) thought very properly.

The CHAIR again propounded the question on the appeal, on which tellers had been ordered, and there were-ayes 68 in favor of the decision. 'The Whigs opposed to the decision of the Chair again refused to vote.

Mr. ADAMS and others called upon their friends 10t to vole, and the result was, that the Chair was gain compelled to rise and report the absence of a juorom, although there was a quorum in their ieats.

The SPEAKER having resumed the Chair,
Mr. CHAPMAN of Alabama moved to adjourn.
On this motion the yeas and nays were ordered,
nd were--yeas 20, nays 119.
So the House refused to adjourn.
Mr. JENIFER then addressed the SPEAKER ON

the subject of bis appeal in committee, and complained that he had been denied the right of speaking on his own appeal, which he demanded as a right, etc.

Mr. KEIM asked if the gentleman was to be the sole judge of what was right.

The SPEAKER said the gentleman was under the control of, and must abide by, the decisions of the committee.

Mr. JENIFER wished to know if he had not the right to ask the SPEAKER to appoint another chairman.

Mr. BANKS rose to reply, as did other gentle

The SPEAKER said there could be no debate; and, as a quorum was now present, the House would go again into committee, and the ChairMAN would be pleased to resume the chair.

Mr. Banks accordingly resumed the chair, and the question still being on the appeal,

Mr. WISE having been absent, desired the Chair to re-stale the ground of his decision.

The CHAIR did so as fo!lows, that, after the gentleman from Maryland had read the paragraph from Mr. Strong's speech, on Abolition, etc. he was proceeding to debate the subject.

After some debate of a converrational character, Mr. JENIFER reduced his appeal to writing, and it was read by the Clerk as follows:

"Mr. JENIFER, of Maryland, read in his place a paragraph from a speech delivered by Mr. STRONG of New York, in the same committee, on the same subject, viz: the Sub-Treasury bill, which paragraph is as follows, (see above.)

"Mr. STRONG answered That it had been delivered by him, and Mr. JENIFER then avowed his intention of replying to the allegations and matters contained in that paragraph The Chair called Mr. JENIFER to order, and Mr. JENIFER appealed from that decision."

The question was then taken by tellers, on sustaining the decision of the Chair, and resulted ayes 80, noes 51.

So the decision of the Chair was affirmed, and Mr. JENIFER decided to be out of order.

Mr. HOPKINS then moved that the gentleman from Maryland be permitted to proceed in order; which motion prevailed.

Mr. JENIFER then resumed his remarks, and proceeded to make some comments on the political course of Mr. Brown of Mississippi, ard more especially on the vote of that gentleman when a member of the Mississippi Legislature, in relation to the issue of post notes. He also referred to a recent speech of Mr. B. in which the letter denied having voted for post notes in 1839.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi reminded the gentleman that his colleague [Mr. Brown) had made no speech on the present bill, and was understood to raise a point of order as to the propriety of referring to a speech delivered on another subject.

Mr. JENIFER proceeded and said he could show from the record that Mr. B. did vote for the issue of post notes in Mississippi.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi again rose and reminded Mr. J. that his colleague [Mr. Brown] was absent. He would, however, undertake to say that his colleague, if present, could explain the matter to the entire satisfaction of the gentleman and the House He hoped, therefore, that no question would be raised calculated io affect his colleague's veracity. Mr. T. added that if it was in order he himself would explain the malter to the satisfaction of the House and the people of the country.

The CHAIR said it would not be in order.

Mr. JENIFER said he was going to show that the Legislature of Mississippi had issued post notes, and that the gentleman (Mr. Brown] had voted for those notes in lieu of United States Bank notes.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi wished to ask

the gentleman from Maryland if he was going to debate the subject of post notes.

Mr. JENIFER said he was going to show that the record falsified what the gentleman's colleague, (Mr. Brown,] had said in his speech.

Mr. THOMPSON said the record was false, and he could show that the man who made the record had admitted he had placed Mr. Brown in a false position.

Mr. JENIFER was understood to say that if the record was false, that altered the case. All he intended to say was, that the record as it stood, falsified what the gentleman (Mr. Brown] had said in relation to his vote on the issue of post notes.

Mr. THOMPSON, in the absence of his coll'eague, asked leave to explain the matter. He then made a statement in relation to the record, in substance that the man who made the record, had published in the newspapers a statement as to the manner in which the record was made, and how he had placed General Brown in a false position, etc. The people of Mississippi understood the matter perfectly well. Besides, he would remind the gentleman from Maryland, that his colleague, Mr. B. had not denied having voted for post notes in 1836. On the contrary, he had admitted it. All he denied was voting for them in 1839.

Mr. JENIFER made some further remarks, pending which

Mr. THOMPSON informed him that he had despatched a messenger for his colleague, who would po doubt like to answer for himself.

Mr. JENIFER brought his remarks to a close, protesting that the freedom of debate no longer existed, and assuring the committee that what he had been prevented from saying in the House, shall appear elsewhere.

Mr. ALLEN of Ohio next obtained the floor, when

Mr. BROWN of Mississippi, having now arrived, with the permission of Mr. Allen, took the floor for the purpose of making an explanation in relation to the charge of Mr. JENIFER, on the subject of the Mississippi post notes. He spoke of ihe chivalry of the gentleman from Maryland making an attack on him when he was absent. He observed that having had no notification that the gentleman from Maryland intended to make any allusions to his course in the Legislature of Mississippi, he had left the House for the purpose of fulfilling an engagement; but he had been informed, that during his absence the gentleman from Maryland had said, that he (Mr. B.) had denied having voted for the issue of post notes in 1836.

Now he appealed to the gentleman from Ten. nessee, and several other gentlemen, who heard his remarks, whether he did not expressly state that he did vote for the issue of post notes in 1836. Such was the fact, and the gentlemen near him would testify to the truth of the statement. But, although he had said thai he voted for those post notes in 1836, he had also distinctly denied having voted for them in 1839, although that charge had been made again and again, by persons in his own State, having no regard for decency or political honesty. He would now repeat what he had said on a former occasion-hal, when the post note system was first introduced in Mississippi, acting under the advice of certain bank directors, he did reluctantly vote for them; but it was soon discovered that ihey would not answer, and the system exploded. After its failure, he then voted against them, as it was then ascertained by all parties that they were not the things wbich they expected them to be.

He must also be allowed to say that he could not refrain from expressing his surprise at the most extraordinary course of the gentleman from Maryland in raking up the votes of honorable members of the House, given in their own State Legislatures. What object the gentleman could have in thus searching out the votes of individual members when in their State Legislatures, for the purpose

of

holding them up to the country, he would leave to the House to determine. What was it to he gentleman trom Maryland how he acted when a member of the Legislature of Mississippi? What was it to the gentleman if he voted a thousand times for post notes? It was the business of none but the people of Mississippi, and they had proved their satisfaction by giving him increased majorities at his elections.

Mr. BLACK here rose and appealed to the courtesy of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. ALLEN] to permit him to reply to the attack made upon him by the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. JENIFER.)

Mr. ANDREWS objected, and called Mr. B. to order.

The CHAIR stated that the gentleman from Ohio was entitled to the floor.

Mr. BLACK. I am aware of that, and I appeal to the courtesy of that gentleman to allow me to repel the aliack which has been made upon me by the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. ANDREWS contended that it was not in the power of the gentleman from Ohio lo yield the floor, without losing it himself.

Mr.BLACK, with much vehemence, asked if the House would not give him an opporlunity to reply to the unjust attack which had been made upon him.

Here a scene of great confusion arose, and Mr. Black persisted in urging his request for an opportunity to repel the attack, amidst loud cries of "order," "go on," etc.

Toe CHAIR having restored order, stated that, as objection was made, the gentleman from Georgia must resume his seat.

Mr. BLACK did so, remonstrating however at the want of courtesy in those genilemen who objected to afford him a chance to reply.

A motion was then made that the committee rise, and tellers being ordered, the vote was—ayes 63, noes 63.

The Chair voted in the negative. So the motion was rejected.

Mr. ALLEN then commenced his remarks, and continued until 8 o'clock in opposition to the bill, when he gave way to a motion that the committee rise; which motion prevailed.

The House then adjourned.

Missouri, was discussed by Messrs. WALL, KING, WALKER, and SMITH of Indiana, and amended by striking out the additional compensation; and after some further remarks by Messrs. KING and LINN, it was laid on the table.

On motion of Mr. BUCHANAN, the bill for the bill for the relief of Auguste Davezac, William D. Jones and Nathaniel Niles, was considered as in committee of the whole, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

SYSTEM OF BANKRUPTCY. The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill to establish'a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States.

Mr. HUBBARD moved' in Senate the amendment rejected in committee, compelling the debtor to become bankrupt if on his arrest or imprisonment he should not procure bail or security in 40 days.

After a few remarks by Mr. KING, showing that this amendment might operate oppressively, it was withdrawn by the mover.

Some minor amendments having been made on motion by Mr. Williams and Mr. Wall

Mr. WALL moved the compulsory bankruptcy of a debtor in case he should declare himself to be insolvent.

The amendment was rejected by—ayes 8, noes not counted.

Mr. WALKER asked if the Senator from New York (Mr. Wright) would consent to change the time when the bill would go into operation from the fourth of March to the first of January or February, assigning as a reason for the request that, in a particular district in Mississippi, the posiponennent to the fourth of March, would in effect postpone the time several months longer. To save the trouble of voting, &c. Mr. W. would now agree to the first of February, if none objected, though he should much prefer the first of January, and should move that time, if it should be necessary to make a motion at all.

Mr. WRIGHT, "after a few remarks as to a point of order, said he could not consent to this request.

Mr. WALKER now moved to reconsider the vote by which the fourth of March was fixed as the day when the bill should go into operation.

This motion was carried in the affirmative, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anderson, Calhoun, Clav of Kentucky, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Henderson, Huntington, King, Knight, Merrick, Mouton, Nicholas, Norvell, Phelps, Porter, Ruggles, Smith of Indiana, Southard, Tallmadge, Walker, Webster, and Young--23.

NAYS— Messrs. Allen, Brown, Buchanan, Clay of Alabama, Dixon, Fulton, Hubband, Linn, Lumpkin, Pierce, Prentiss, Robinson, Smith of Connecticut, Strange, Sturgeon, Tappan, Wall, Williams, and Wright--19.

Mr. WRIGHT now moved the first of February, Mr. WALKER the first of January, and Mr. HENDERSON the first day of December next.

After an irregular conversation on order, precedence, and a renewal of the compromise at first proposed by Mr. WALKER--

Mr. KING said it was in order to vote for the fourth of March, which was the question to be reconsidered; and that day was rejected, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Allen, Benton, Brown, Clay of Alabama, Cuthbert, Dixon, Fulton, Hubbard, Linn, Lumpkin, Pierce, Prentiss, Roane, Robinson, Smith of Connecticut, Strange, Sturgeon, Tappan, Wall, Williams, aud Wright-21.

NAYS-Messrs. Anderson, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay of Kentucky, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Henderson, Huntington, King, Knight, Merrick, Mouton, Nicholas, Norvell, Phelps, Porter, Press ton, Ruggles, Smith of Indiana, Southard, Tallmadge, Walker, and Webster-4.

Mr. WALKER now moved the 1st of January, and Mr. WRIGHT the 1st of February; and, after a short conversation, precedence was understood to fall on Mr. Wright's motion, as an amendment to the motion of Mr. WALKER.

And, accordingly, the 1st of February next was fied as the day when the bill should go into operation, by the following vote:

YEAS–Messrs. Allen, Benton, Brown, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay of Alabama, Cuthbert, Dixon, Fulton, Hubbard, Linn, Lumpkin, Mouton, Pierce, Prentiss, Roane, Robinson, Smith of Connecticut,

Strange, Sturgeon, Tappan, Wall, Williams, Wright, and Young-25.

YAY'S—Messrs. Anderson, Clay of Kentucky, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Henderson, Huntington, Knight, Merrick, Nicholas, Norvell

, Phelps, Porter, Preston, Ruggles, Smith of Indiana, Southard, Tallmadge, Walker, Webster and White-21.

The operation of the bill being limited to two years,

Mr. DIXON moved to strike out this limitation, leaving the time indefinite. He said there might be occasion for legislation, where a limited period of time for the existence of a law would be very proper; when, for instance, the law was to remedy a mere temporary or partial evil. But a law that was intended as the commencement of a permanent national system, regulating finally the great relation of debtor and creditor, and that, too, in pursuance of a constitutional provision of the Federal Government, he could not but deem such a linitation undecessary, to say the least of it, inasmuch as Congress could at any session repeal the law, whenever that repeal might be deemed expedient. might be harmless enough for a man to make bargains with himself, and prescribe limitation for his own action, because, while in the exercise of free agency, he could enforce or cancel them at pleasure, without the imputation of bad faith, and so a Legislature in many matters may limit iheir acts of legislation to a given period of time, which they can always control. But, in relation to this subjeet, this limitation would be worse than useless;

will give to the intention of this law an inauspicious character. It will be considered that the makers of it, instead of forming a law for a permanent bankrupt system, have only intended it as a mere temporary relief law, for a particular classas a mere sponge to wipe out the old scores of the present insolvent debtors. All will admit that ought not to be the only object of the law, although it would be among its very desirable ends. It has been supposed that this etiort for a bankrupt law was made as another experiment for that system of bankruptcy authorized by the Constitution, and contemplated from the commencement of the Government. But is two years a fair proportion of time for such an experiment ? It will be long enough to show its imperfections and its abuses for all new systems are obnoxious to abuse, and in their first operations develope their latent defects.

But it is said the law can be extended. That may harpen; but it is more probable that such will be the use made of it as to render it unpo pular, and put an end to further legislation on ihat subject.

The doubt that will be eniertained of any extension of the law, or the passage of any other law on the subject, will enrol Thousands on the bankrupt calendar.

When the period of this bankrupt law is drawing to a close, many a man who might get on well enough in business would begin to retlect on his chances of fortune some time hence, and calling to mind the sulerings the insolvent debtor when there is no bankrupt law, would seize the opportunity as it passed. The prompt and watchful spirit that pervades this country marks the periods of time when self-interest may be best proinoted, and when self-preservation can be best secured. What course do inen adopt when statutes of limitation are passed? Cutting off State demands of any other law of limitation, do you not see a general movement to come within the law? Do you not see your dockets enlarged with cases, and your courts of law filled with suitors? All act upon the maxim of making hay while the sun shines. Thus you will see men in crowds moving for the bankrupt law. Some upon the voluntary principle will rush into it, while others upon the coercive principle are thrust into it. All, for aught

know, may be very appropriate subjects, for I am only speaking of the etiécts it will have on the fate of the experiment. This will be the period when the public will have the subject under consideration, and the long list of bankrupts will be alarming, bring the system into publie odium, and there will be an end of bankrupt laws.

Would the people of this country be in favor of this law if they supposed nothing more was intended than two years use of it? The adoption of this system involves sacrifices; it contravenes a salutary maxim of legislation; it is retrospective in its operation on past contracts now outstanding; it adds another change in business relations, to the inconvenience of a people already worn down with changes; it gives a new character to the relation of

IN SENATE,

WEDNESDAY, June 24, 1810. Mr. WALL, from the Committee on the Judicary, reported

A bill to amend the act approved May 13, 1800, entitled “an act to amend an act, entitled an act to establish the judicial courts of the United States," and

A bill to authorize the stereotyping, printing, and publishing of a complete edition of the laws of the United States, and the distribution thereof; which were severally read, and ordered to a second reading.

Mr. MOUTON, from the Committee on Private Land Claims, reported a bill confirming the claim of the heirs of Antonio Gras to a tract of land in Louisiana

The joint resolution in addition to a joint resolution authorizing certain certificates to be cancelled and re-issued;

The bill for the relief of the sureties or Archibald Sneed, deceased; and

The bill for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, and for other purposes, were severally read a third time, and passed.

GENERAL ORDERS. The bill further supplemental to an act entitled "an act to abolish imprisonment for debt in certain cases,” passed February 24, 1839, after being discussed by Messrs. WALL, KNIGHT, and TALLMADGE;

The bill to enable the United States to discharge liens and incumbrances upon any real estate which now is, or hereafter may become the property of the United States, after being debated by Messrs. WALL, DAVIS, CALHOUN, and BUCHANAN; were severally ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

The bill to regulate the legal proceedings, and to provide for the more speedy trial of causes in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of

TENDEN

debtor and creditor; all which would be borne, and cheerfully borne, to secure the desirable end of a permanent bankrupt system. But, a two years' regulation of an abiding evil would only serve lo confuse rather than regulate the relations of business. It would, to be sure, relieve many useful and deserving men from the bondage of their indebtedness, whose efforts are now paralyzed, and who are entiiled to this relief. But ihe condition of the present class of insolvent debtors is not the only consideration which should govern in forming this bill. And whatever limitation gives rise to jealousy-ihat it is a mere temporary relief law-will render the law unpopular, and destroy all hope of any permanent system.

Mr. D's motion to strike out the limitation was negatived as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Brown, Dixon, Henderson, Knight, Merrick, Mouton, Phelps, Porter, Ruggles, Southard, Strange, Tallmadge, White-13.

NAYS—Messrs. Allen, Anderson, Benton, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay of Alabama, Clayton, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Davis, Fulton, Hubbard, Huntingfon, King, Linn, Lumpkin, Nicholas, Norvell, Piercx Prentiss, Preston, Roane, Robinson, Smith of Connecticut, Smith of Indiana, Sturgeon, Walker, Wall, Webster, Williams, Wright, Young-32.

After a minor amendment, moved by Mr. Crit

Mr. WALL moved to insert a requisition that notice, personal or by letter, of any bankruptcy under this bill should be given, when practicable, to all the creditors.

This amendment, after a few remarks by Mr. W. for it, and by Mr. CRITTENDEN against it, was agreed to as follows:

YEAS—Messrs. Allen, Anderson, Benton, Clay of Alabama, Dixon, Fulton, Hubbard, King, Linn, Lumpkin, Nicholas, Pierce, Prentiss, Roane, Robinson, Smith of Connecticut, Strange, Sturgeon, Tappan, Wall, William, and Wright-12.

NAYS— Messrs. Brown, Clay of Kentucky, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Henderson, Knight, Merrick, Norvell, Phelps, Porter, Preston, Ruggles, Smith of Indiana, Southard, Tallmadge, Walker, Webster, and White-19.

The bill was then ordered to be engrossed by yeas and nays as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Clay of Kentucky, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Dixon, Henderson, Huntington, Knight, Merrick, Mouton, Nicholas, Norvell, Phelps, Porter, Ruggles, Smith of Indiana, Southard, Tallmadge, Walker, Webster, White, Williams, Wright, and Young-24.

NAYS–Messrs. Allen, Anderson, Benton, Brown, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay of Alabama, Cuthbert, Fulton, Hubbard, King, Linn, Lumpkin, Pierce, Prentiss, Preston, Roane, Robinson, Smith of Connecticut, Strange, Sturgeon, Tappan, and Wall-23.

The Senate, having held an Executive session, adjourned. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

WEDNESDAY, June 24, 1810. Mr. BOTTS observed that he understood that now, after the lapse of ten days, the record of the trial of Lieutenant Hooe before a court martial was returned from the Department, and was now on the SPEAKER's table; he called for its presentation to the House, that it might be read.

Mr. DROMGOOLE asked if he was to understand the Chair as putting the question then.

Mr. BOTTS said, no; he himself raised the question, and he wished ihe documents to be presented to the House.

Mr. DROMGOOLE objected to any communication of the kind being taken up out of the regular order of business. He had not the slightest objection to the presentation of the documents in the regular order, when the SPEAKER should ask leave to present the documents on his table; but he did object to any particular document being called up from the rest, by any member.

Mr. BOTTS said he had been charged with sending poison through the country, and he now wished to embrace the first opportunity of furnishing the antidote; and if objection was made, he would move a suspension of the rules, in order that the communication might now be received by the House, and

Mr. DROMGOOLE said he had no objection, provided the Speaker presented the documents in

regular order. 1. Mr. PETRIKIN said: I object during the morn

ing hour, It would interfere with the reports of

committees. After that, he would have no objection.

Mr. GRAVES and others demanded the yeas and nays, which were ordered.

Mr. JONES of Virginia inquired whether Mr. Botts moved that the rules be suspended during the morning hour only, or generally.

Mr. BOTTS said he would modify his motion to the morning huur only.

The question being taken, the yeas and nays resulted as follows: Yeas 145, nays 25.

So the rules were suspended during the morning hour.

The CHAIR then laid before the House a communication from the Navy Department, containing the proceedings of a court inartial at Pensacola, summoned for the trial of Lieut. Hooe, together with the approval thereof by the Secretary of the Navy, Lieut. Hooe's protest and memorial to the President, and certain remarks of the Secretary in defence of his course in approving the sentence, together with a legal opinion of the United States District Attorney, Francis S. Key.

The reading having proceeded for some time

Mr. BOTTS interrupted the reading, and (with much anxiety and surprise depicted in his countenance) said: Mr. Speaker, that is not the document expected, and which was called for under the resolution of the House. It was one which had never been shown to him. It seemed to be a defence of the Administration. Is that the document, Mr. Speaker? The SPEAKER. I do not know.

[A considerable buzz now prevailed in the hall; and evident surprise and disappointment, if not mortification, were depicted in the countenances of those who instigated the call for the document. There was much undertone conversation, and a confounded thinking: soine of the exclamations were sufficiently audible to enable the Reporter to catch them-such as, “It is a defence of the President and Secretary!" "It is not what was expected!” “The preamble and resolutions would have answered a much better purpose!" "The thing should not have been pressed after the motion to suspend the rules for the reception of the preamble and resolution.” That was the point on which to rest it. Considerable confusion. Cries from the friends of the Administration, and accompanied by some laughter, at the apparent chagrin and astonishment expressed by those who introduced the preamble and resolution. “Read on! read on! that is the identical document! that is a part of the proceedings called for-it embraces ALL.” Considerable conversation in the undercurrent, by the friends of the Administration, (who appeared to be much pleased,) of which the Reporter caught the words: "He is caught in his own trap! not so much political capital as was expected!" "No go!" "How impolitic to try to make capital out of every thing!" "The Lieutenant will not thank him.” “It must be printed!" "It puts a new face on the circumstances!” Many other things were heard, which the Reporter will not give.)

the document was read through.
A number of gentlemen rose simultaneously.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, moved to refer this communication to the Committee on the Judiciary, and on that motion he demanded the previous qnestion.

Mr. W. COST JOHNSON called for the reading of the documents accompanying the communication.

They were read accordingly. The reading having proceeded some time

Mr. RHETT moved to suspend the reading, but it was objected to, as against the rule; and Mr. R. did not press the motion.

The reading then proceeded.

Mr. BOTTS. That is not the record of the trial; that is a defence of the Administration.

The SPEAKER. The record here, and will now be read.

The reading of the record of the trial was then commenced; but before it was concluded, the morning hour expired.

Mr. JONES moved to go into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, but temporarily withdrew the motion at the requesi of

Mr. CRABB of Alabama, who moved a reconsideration of the decision of the House made yesterday to receive and place in the Library of Congress a copy of Raymond's Political Economy. Having examined that book, Mr. C. had discovered that it contained doctrine and language highly exceptionable to him as a Southern man, and which

he believed came within the rule on the subject of Abolition; in case of reconsideration, he wished to move the reference of the book to the Committee on the Library, in order that it might be examined and reported on to save the time of the House.

Mr. TURNEY demanded the previous question on the motion to reconsider.

The previous question was seconded, put, and carried; and the main question being on reconsidering

Mr. JAMES demanded the yeas and nays; which were ordered.

Mr. ADAMS rose amidst cries of "order," and was going on to express his surprise at the motion of the gentleman from Alabama, and to give some account of the book, when he was arrested by the CHAIR.

Mr. A. remonstrated.

The CHAIR insisted that he could not proceed but by general consent.

Objections were loudly uttered.

Mr. LINCOLN said that unless his colleague should be perunitted to proceed, and give the House some account of the book, Mr. L. should demand that the book itself be read.

Mr. TURNEY inquired if it was in order to ask for the reading of the book on the motion to reconsider.

Mr. LINCOLN demanded that the book be read.

The CHAIR decided that as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. LINCOLN] was called to vote respecting this book, he had a right, under the rules of the House, to have it read, if he so demanded.

Great confusion arose. Mr. HABERSHAM, Mr. TURNEY, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. HOPKİNS, and others, were on their feet, all simultaneously addressing the Chair,

Mr. HOPKINS called for the reading of the rule of the House, and also of Jefferson's Manual on the question of order.

Mr. ANDREWS inquired if it was not in order for the gentleman from Massachusetts to make an explanation.

The CHAIR said it was not, except by leave of the House.

Mr. LINCOLN wished to explain, but the Chair refused, the previous question having been ordered,

The CHAIR then stated his decision, and ex. plained the grounds on which it rested.

Mr. HOPKINS took an appeal; but before any vote was taken on the appeal

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

Mr. CRAB wished to explain, but was arrested,
The question being stated from the Chair---

Mr. ADAMSaddressed the House. (Loud cries of order.) The gentleman from Alaba

The CHAIR called to order.

The gentleman from Alabama has undertaken [order, order] to be grand inquisitor for this House; lo speak [order] its opinion on a certain book [Here the cries of order were very loud, and the Chair ordered Mr. Adams to resume his seat.]

The question being again stated

Mr. CRABB demanded the yeas and nays, but the House refused to order them.

The vote being taken, the CHAIR declared it to be decided in the affirmative.

Mr. CRABB remonstrated, declaring that he had demanded a count.

Mr. NAYLOR inquired of the Chair whether, the whole subject was laid on the table, it would take the book out of the library, and place it on the table.

The CHAIR replied, no.

The question was again put, and the House di. viding, the ayes were 123, the noes 30.

So the House determined that the whole subject should be laid on the table.

Mr. CRABB rose and stated to the Chair that he had, previously to the last vote, demanded that one chapter of the book of Mr. Raymond be read to the House.

The CHAIR replied that he had had heard no such demand.

Mr. CRABB now, under much excitement, demandled the reading of the chapter, that the base libel of this author on the South and its institutions[Here the uproar became very great: Mr. Crabe continuing to speak with more and more animation: the Chair calling to order: shouts of order mixed with loud laughter resounding from all quarters of the hall,

read,

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »