were conclusive as to the right of those persons bring ng them to take their seats w.thout further question. Where was the precedent for it? All the decisions were directly at variance with it; and in the case of Spalding and Mead, it was decided that the returns were only prima facie evidence. But gentlemen contended that a prima facie evidence of a right gave a man a conclusive right. It was not worth while to go into a refutation of this absurdity. It must be admitted that the right to take a seat in that House rested on the elections and qualifications of the members, and that the prima facie evidence of these two circumstances was only good evidence in the ab ence of any thing to contradict it. The very

learned gentleman from Pennsylvania attempted to prove that the five New Jersey gentlemen were now members of the House, and had been so for a long time. Now, he did not understand that there was any thing in the Constitution or the laws to justify him in this position. Did he understand the argument of the gentleman to be that, because these five New Jersey gentlemen, on their way here, might be discharged from arrest under color of their right as members of the House, this gave them a ght? Where did the gentleman find that the decision of a judge, or even of the chief justice himself and all his associates, was authority to bind the House of Representatives, acting under the power given them by the Constitution? To a certain extent, these gentlemen, with the commissions of the Governor of New Jersey in their pockets, had the rights and privileges of members, while on their way to the seat of Government; but that gave them no right which they did not possess. Here Mr. D. quoted the case of Hammond, a member from Ohio, decided by the House of Representatives, in which the question was raised with regard to the time when membership commenced; and referred to the very able report made by Mr. John W. Taylor, of New York, in that case. There it was decided that membership, so far as this House was concerned, did not commence until the gentleman had actually taken his seat in it.

Mr. D. next entered into a refutation of Mr. SERGEANT's position, that there never was any interregnum of the House of Representatives, but that it was a perpetual body. This he denied. One of the first distinctions he had ever learned between the two Houses, was, that the Senate was a perpetual body, but that the House ceased to exist with the expiration of the term for which its members were elected; and that at every Congress there was a new House of Representatatives. He no more believed in the unbroken succession of the House of Representatives, than he did in the unbroken succession of the line of the Popes from St. Peter down to this time.

Mr. D. said he had shown before, that they were not to look to the body of the representatives of a State as the representation of the State itself, but to look at it, under the Constitution, as the representation of the people of that State. Gentlemen seemed to have great fears about going into conflict with the laws of a State; but, said Mr. D. there are decisions of this House, which, finding State laws standing in the way of the Constitution, have set them aside; and this is not going into conflict with the laws of that States, but merely passing them by, because they did not conform to the Constitution. Mr. D. quoted the case of Mr. Barney of Maryland, whose seat was contested, to show that the House set aside a law of the State of Maryland, requiring a qualification as to residence, which was not required by the Constitution; that instrument requiring only the member to be, when elected, an inhabitant of the State from which he is chosen. But gentlemen would perceive the absurdity to which they would be driven, by contending that the enactments of a State are binding on the House of Representatives, as to the elections and returns of its members. If, as gentlemen say, these certificates and seals are conclusive as to the right of those presenting them, how could the House judge of such elect.ons and returns, as it is solely empowered to do by the Constitution? If this doctrine of the gentleman from Pennsylvania is in accordance with what he conceives to be the States

Rights doctrines, it was a species of nullification, he apprehended, that his Sta'es Rights friends would not go for. The Null.fication party, as he understood, (at the same time appealing to Mr. PICKENS,) interposed the State's sovereignty to arrest an unconstitutional law; but this nullifying the Constitution of the United States by a State enactment, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania would now have it, was going further than any Nullifier he ever heard of was disposed to go. Thus much as to the rights of the States. He flattered himself that all the State Rights gentlemen were now with him.

But gentlemen asserted that some persons must take their seats as members from the State of New Jersey before the House can decide the matter. "I should like" (said Mr. D.) "for gentlemen to show me their authority for this. I should like to know when it was decided that a member must take his seat before it can be decided whether he is entitled to it." Mr. D. here referred to the decision in the case of Mr. Edwards of Maryland, to show the error of this position; and also, for the same purpose, referred to the case of Mr. John Richards, a member from the State of Pennsylvania, in which case the Governor of that State acted with much more delicacy and moderation than the Governor of New Jersey; for he gave the commission to neither of the contending parties, but left the controversy to be decided by the House. Now in this New Jersey case the refusal of the Governor to give his certificates would not, in the least, have prejudiced the claims of those gentlemen to whom he did give them; for they would still have had the same rights which they now possessed, and on which only the House was competent to decide. This book, [holding up the volume of contested election cases,] said Mr. D. is full of cases in which the House has counted the votes, either where the authorities of the States refused to count them, or where they were returned too late to be counted under the State laws. He would not undertake here to define what was meant by the phrase "prima facie evidence;" but he was grossly deceived if it meant any thing more than first blush evidence, and became good only in the absence of testimony to controvert it. You cannot, then, said Mr. D. where there is clear, strong and impartial testimony staring you in the face, impeaching this prima fa ie evidence, conclude that you will not give it a hearing, without violating every principle of justice, as well as of the Constitution of the United States.

After having shown the power of the Huse to examine into all the returns of its members, both primary and ultimate, Mr. D. would merely say that if the certificates of the Secretary of State are not evidence in this case, it was twice decided in the House, in the case of Spalding and Mead that they were; and further, that this was the first time that the certificate and seal of an office of record was not considered good evidence with regard to the records in that office. He had briefly touched on the points involved in this case, for the purpose of showing that the House ought not to resolve with this inconsiderate, he would not say indecent, haste, that they would not look into the important test.mony impeaching these certificates, but ought to make up its decision after a full knowledge of all the evidence belonging to this case. He, Mr. D. was for going regularly into an examination of this case, and for going into it in a tangible form. He was for permitting both parties to be heard on their trial. Believing this to be the course required as well by expediency as by justice, he would not, even if he thought these five New Jersey gentlemen had the right to the returns, vote for the proposition of his colleague; for it would not be right nor just to prejudge the case before ascertaining all the facts connected with it. He hoped, therefore, that it would be the pleasure of the House to have the whole case fairly brought before them, and then, after hearing both parties, discuss it calmly and deliberately, and decide upon it with a full understanding of its merits. Mr. D. said that he was for going into an examination of this question through the medium of a committee, both for the sake of convenience, and for the sake of bringing all the evi

dence inore clearly within the view of the members of that b. dy. This would be in conformity with the precedent established in the case of Moore and Letcher, where it was solemnly decided that, pending the controversy, neither party should be permitted to qualify. He believed there was not a single exception in cases decided in either branch of Congress, where gentlemen presenting themselves, and whose credentia's were objected to, in which the matter was not referred to a committee, who reported bef re there was any further action upon it. The book was full of such cases, and gentlemen, with all their ingenuity, could not find a single case in which a contrary course was taken. He found cases where the Governors of States had commissioned members, and where they were not permitted to qualify, but were sent with their crecentials to a committee. Where no question with regard to the credentials was raised, the member presenting them was always permitted to qualify, of course; but whenever the question was raised to the validity of their commission, they were not suffered to qualify until it was decided that they were entitled to their seats. Mr. D. in this part of his argument, read the case of Mr. Landon, in the Senate of the United States in March, 1825, by which it appeared that Mr. L's credentials having been objected to, he was not permitted to qualify, but the matter was referred to a committee.

Mr. WISE. What were the objections to Mr. Landon's credentials?

Mr. DROMGOOLE. Not that they were informal-not that they were not signed by the Governor, accompanied by the broad seal of a sovereign State, but that the Governor had no right to give them. In the case of Mr. Landon, there was a proposition that he should be permitted to take the oath, and it was rejected, and his credentials were referred to a committee. There was, alse, a long list of precedents to the same purport, which he would not take up the time of the House by reading, though he wou'd cite one of the cases to show that, where the objection was raised as to the credentials, the House went into an examination of them through the agency of a committee. [Mr. D. Fere read a case of a member from the State of Ohio, in which this course was taken by the House.] In all cases where no objections were raised to the credentials, the member was permi ted to qualify; but in every case in which objections had been made to them, they were not permitted to take their eats till the val.dity of their credentials was decided on.

If the doctrines for which gentlemen co..tend, that these certificates, no matter how obtained, wili give a seat in this House, shou'd prevail, you will strike a fatal blow at the freedom of elections and the purity of a repre entative Government? It is this elective franchise, Mr. D. said, and the belief of the pe pe that they may, through it, of right, carry out the Democratic pr ncip'e, and do what they cannot do but in their primary a semblies, that is the su est safeguard of our liberties. But, said Mr. D. if you establish the principle that the credentials given by the State authorities, no matter how fraudulentno matter how much at variance with the will of the people of the State, as expressed in the elec tions, shall outweigh the popular voice, you strike a stab at the existence of the elective franchise, and destroy every principle that makes Democracy both lovely and practicable.

Mr. D. in conclusion, denied that excluding the New Jersey members till their credentials were inquired into, would be disfranchising that State. If her members presented themselves with credentials, which there was good reason to doubt the validity of, it was her misfortune, and the fault of her authorities; but the House was nevertheless bound to exercise the power vested in it by the Constitution, and to examine into all the evidence connected with them. decide, said Mr. D. that we must, ex necessitale rei, permit these gentlemen to take their seats here, and, through their agency, laws may be passed detrimental to the rest of the Union, and then afterwards, upon an investigation, decide that they are not entitled to their seats, I ask, said

If you

he, how you are to repair the injury thus inAicted. He asked if it would not be the part of wisdom, as well as of safety, to let these gentlemen wait until, after a fair, calm, and impartial examination, the House could decide upon their claims. He indulged the hope that, if the House was disposed to do justice to New Jersey, as well as to the rest of the Union, they would not decide upon this matter with such inconsiderate haste as to overlook the important testimony before them.

Mr. CHAPMAN rose to make a privileged motion. He desired to move to reconsider the vote by which the resolution for the adoption of rules of order was laid on the table this morning.

The CHAIR said the motion could not be made unless a motion was made to postpone the question before the House.

Mr. RHETT inquired of the CHAIR whether he considered the House bound by any general parliamentary principles, it having refused to adopt the rules of the last House of Representatives this morning.

The SPEAKER said his impression was, that the House was bound by general parliamentary principles.

re

Mr. RHETT then said, that if the general parliamentary law was obligatory on the House, this proposition of the gentleman from Virginia, in regard to the New Jersey members, was clearly out of order; for according to all parliamentary law, you cannot introduce a proposition which has been once rejected. The rule laid down in Jefferson's Manual was, when a proposition is once jected, no question of a similar character can be brought before the House. Now this question, with regard to the right of the New Jersey members to take their seats, had been decided by the House, not only once, but more than once, for he maintained that this body was as much a House when it decided this question, as it was at the present time, or as it ever could be. By the Constitution of the United States, as well as by the parliamentary rule, the House was as much a House before the election of a Speaker as after it, and he presumed no gentleman would contend that the election of a Speaker would make a House. He referred to a case in the British Parliament, where it was fourteen days without a Speaker, yet no one pretended that it was incompetent to pass upon questions which might be presented to it during that time. If gentlemen would refer to the proceedings of the Parliament of Great Britain, they would see where that body had decided questions again and again without a Speaker. A Speaker might be necessary in conducting the business of the House, but the want of a Speaker took nothing from the power of the House. Sir, what have we done alreadp? Did not the House, at the instance of a gentleman from Virginia, adopt rules for the government of its proceedings? Well, were we a House then, or were we not? Did we not perform other duties? And were we a House, or were we not, when we performed those duties? Will men pretend to say that we had not the power to perform these duties until you were placed in that chain? The Constitution of the United States says that each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings. Well, sir, is the journal of the last two weeks, which is lying upon your table, the journal of the House of Representatives, or is it not? Unquestionably, gentlemen will not deny that it is the journal of the House. Again the Constitution says that the House shall judge of the qualifications, elec tion, and returns of its members. Well, has not the House decided on the qualifications and returns of the New Jersey members? for unquestionably it was a House when it made this decision. The Constitution further says that the House shall elect a Speaker. Were we a House when you were elected, or were we not. He contended that the House had the right to decide on the qualification and returns of its members before the election of a Speaker; and further, that the House did right in deciding upon the New Jersey case before a Speaker was called to the chair. The House had decided the question, and it had decided against the right of the New Jersey members taking their seats, and although he had no instrumentality in making that decision, he held that

the House, having once made such a decision, it was not competent for it to open up the question again, and he would sustain that course of proceeding which would put an end to the question at the earliest possible period. It seemed to him that it was due to the country that we should proceed now with the public business, which had already been too long delayed. There was business of greater importance to be performed than discussing this question day after day. The President of the United States was waiting to send in his Message; gentlemen of all parties were looking for it; and the whole people of the country are desirous that we should proceed at once to the discharge of the duties which devolve upon us, their Representatives.

Mr. BRIGGS referred to the resolution which had been submitted by Mr. RHETT in the first instance, and to the discussion which was had upcn it. While it was under debate, the gentleman from South Carolina had been asked, whether he intended by it to preclude all examination of the New Jersey case, after the election of a Speaker; and the gentleman had then said it was not his intention to preclude examination of the question, after the organization, yet he now says that the question has been finally and absolutely settled.

Mr. RHETT rose to explain. What he said now was, that you could not introduce the same proposition now which had been decided before, because the resolution now before the House was identically the same proposition which had been decided before.

Mr. BRIGGS contended that the House had the right to decide upon the question as it was now brought up, and that the former decision of the body, in its unorganized state, would not conflict with this resolution. He replied to the argument of Mr. DROMG OLE, and asserted that there was not to be found, within the last fifty years, a single case, either in the Congress of the United States or in the State Legislatures, where a member, regularly returned according to law, had been refused his seat in the first instance.

Mr. DAVIS of Pennsylvania rose and stated, that at the last session of the Pennsylvania Legislature, two gentlemen from the eighth Senatorial district of Pennsylvania, had presented their credentials to the Senate of that State, made out in pursuance of the laws of the State, yet they were not permitted to take their seats, and their opponents, who had no credentials at all, had the seats given to them.

Mr. RIVES of Va. also referred to cases in the Virginia Legislature, where the persons holding the certificates were not permit ed to take their seats.

Mr. BRIGGS resumed his remarks, referring to the book of contested elections, and declaring that there was no precedent in the sixty-six cases there laid down, where a member having the legal certificate was prevented from taking his seat.

Mr. DROMGOOLE admitted that members were permitted to take their seats upon the evidence they produce, if no question is ra sed as to their right to their seats; but he maintain d that where the question of right was raised, the House must decide it before qualification. In suppo:t of this position, he referred to the cases of Edwards, Richards, and Moore and Letcher.

Mr. BARNARD obtained the floor, and moved an adjournment.

The House then adjourned.

IN SENATE,

WEDNESDAY, December 18, 1839.

A message was received from the President of the United States.

Mr. DAVIS submitted the following resolution: Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be instructed to inform the Senate

1. Whether duties have cei exacted of any vessels of the United States employed in the whale fishery, for tonnage, or the produce of such fisheries, and if so, under what authority.

2. What papers were furnished to such vessels before they cleared, and were they such as have at all times been granted to vessels thus employed.

3. What amount of duties and charges have been paid, what amount bonded, and are the bonds now in force, and unpaid.

4. Are duties now exacted of all such vessels as they arrive, and what amount of fees, if any, have accrued to officers of the customs from this source, and at what places.

Mr. LINN submitted the following resolutions: Resolved, That it is the opinion of the Senate that the title of the United States to the Territory of Oregon is indisputable, and never will be abandoned.

Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to give notice to the British Govern ment that the conventions of 1818, and 1827, which give the right to use and occupy the Oregon Territory, its bays, rivers, harbors, &c. to both par ties indiscriminately, shall cease in twelve months after such notification.

Resolved, That it is both expedient and proper to extend such portions of the laws of the United States over the Territory of Oregon, as may be necessary to secure the lives, liberty, and property of our citizens who may reside in said Territory.

pur

Resolved, That it is expedient to raise an additional regiment of infantry, (rifles,) for the pose of overawing and keeping in check various Indian tribes, or any foreign forces, who may be in said Territory, or on its borders; and at the same time to give ample protection to our citizens engaged in legitimate occupations.

Resolved, That six hundred and forty acres of land should be granted to every white male inhabitant of said Territory of the age of eighteen years, who shall cultivate and use the same five consecu. tive years, and to his heirs at law in the event of his death.

Mr. PRENTISS gave notice that, at as early a day as it would be in order to do so, he would ask leave to introduce a bill to provide for the appointment of a board of commissioners to hear and determine claims against the United States.

Mr. HUBBARD gave notice that, as soon as it would be in order to do so, he would ask leave to introduce the following bills:

A bill for the relief of Walter Loomis and Abel Gay.

A bill for the relief of Samuel White.
A bill for the relief of John Burke.
After the consideration of Executive business,
The Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
WEDNESDAY, December 18, 1839.
Mr. JOHNSON of Tennessee submitted the fol-
lowing resolution:

Resolved, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform that body that a quorum of this House is assembled, that R. M. T. HUNTER, ose of the Representatives from the State of Virginia, has been elected Speaker thereof; and that it is now ready to proceed to business, and that the acting Clerk do go with said message.

Mr. WISE and Mr. WILLIAMS of North Carolina objected to its reception, because the gentleman from New York was entitled to the floor on another subject.

Mr. JOHNSON said his only object was that the House might be enabled to proceed to business at the earliest possible period.

The objections were not withdrawn, and the CHAIR decided that the gentleman from New York was entitled to the floor on the resolution of the gentleman from Virginia.

The question pending was the resolution submitted yesterday by Mr. Wise, that Messrs. AYCRIGG, HALSTED, MAXWELL, STRATTON, and YORKE, are not entitled to be sworn as members of the House.

Mr. BARNARD, who was entitled to the floor, addressed the House at great length on the subject of the resolution. The simple question was, whether the members from New Jersey, who were here in their seats, should be sworn, and it was thus he understood the proposition as a simple question; and simple as it was, it involved many and serious and important considerations, affecting not merely the triumph of par y, but affecting the integrity of the Constitution itself, and the laws, and in its consequences the very Government under which we live. When, a few days ago, he had the honor to make some remarks on the ques

2

tion then presented, growing out of the contest, he offered to the consideration of the gentlemen around bim two distinct grounds as to what was then properly before them. The first was, that, in the condin of the House as then constituted, no question whatever was presented for its consideration upon the elections of the members from New Jersey. The returns were perfect as returns; they were not impeached; they were unquestioned by any member upon this for. The other was that in regard to matter of right. The question of election, as to which were ultimately entitled, could not come up then, because they had no right or power to decide upon it; it belonged to the Committee of Elections, after they were qualified as zembers, and the House constitutionally and preperly organized.

The only point which the House could now un. dertake to decide, was upon the returns of these members as returns, and as to the matter of ultimate rights, and as to the election in New Jersey, that was a matter to be decided by evidence, and that could only be done by the House, when organized to decide as a juicial body. The word return was a word of legal and parliamentary import; and he contended when a return was made in the legal and constitutional manner, the person having the return was entitled to his seat, and could not properly be prevented from taking it. The return was a member's title to office, and he was as much entitled to his seat under it, as any person was entitled to office under his commission.

Mr. B. went into an examination of the law of Parliament, and the practice under it in Great Britain, and in this country, to show that these members were legally entitled to their seats, and contended that this House could not prevent them from taking their seats, until it decided that their opponents was entitled to seats. If the one set of members were rejected, most certainly the other set must be admitted, because the State of New Jersey could not be de prived of her representation. He trusted that the House would not now set the precedent of excluding members who had the regular returns; for if this prec dent was once set, it might lead to consequences the most fearful. If the House once decided that a member having the legal return might be deprived of his seat, because there were others claiming, a reckless party might at any time deprive a large majority of the members of the House from taking their seats, by getg persons to come on here, and contest their rights to seats; and he asked what would be the state of affairs, if both parties should resort to this kind of proceeding at the same time. There could 1ot be a doubt as to the right of the members having the regular return to take their seats, and no power had the right to deprive them of this.

Mr. RAYNER followed Mr. B. and after a brief exordium, entered into a history of the question involved, from the commencement of the session until the present time, attributing all the difficullies which were in the way of an organization of the House, to party excitement, and party discipline. He contended that the gentlemen who came hare claiming seats as members from New Jersey, in opposition to those who were regularly, as he contended, commissioned by the Governor of New Jersey, had no more right here than had the fishWomen of Paris, who intruded themselves into the National Assembly in the time of the French Revolution. He contended that the party with which he acted were the only supporters of the Constitution and laws, as far as this question was concerned, and that they had been striving from the first to organize the House, and proceed to the despatch of the public business, while all the delay and disorder that had been witnessed, were the consequences of the opposition of the other party to the admission of the members who were regularly commissioned by the Governor of New Jersey. In arguing on the rights of these five New Jersey gentlemen to take their seats, he contended that the House had by no means the Tight to go behind their returns; and that these, emanating from the authorities of a sovereign State, were conclusive and binding on the House, and could not be controverted. Mr. R. paid a high compliment to the common law of England, which

he considered the sacred fountain from which all our free institutions flowed; and, arguing that the principles of the common law sanctioned the claims of those gentlemen, he contended that, in the absence of any usage in this country to the contrary, these gentlemen ought to be permitted to take their seats without further question. Mr. R. entered into a long argument to show the necessity of adhering to the forms and technicalities of law, and replied at length to these gentlemen who attempted to cast ridicule on those technical forms which he deemed so essential. Such a guments, he thought, might be very useful when it was intended to delude the ignorant and honest people at the hustings, but were unworthy of this enlightened body, to which they had been addressed. The confusion and inconvenience of refusing to allow those members to take their seats who came here with the regular commissions of the Governor of their State, had been forcibly depicted in the beginning by the gentleman from Pennsyluania, [Mr. SERGEANT,] and he considered the course taken by the majority of this House, to be an attempt to establish a precedent, which, if followed up, would, in after times, place a majority of this House in the power of a lean minority. Suppose, hereafter, he said, that parties should be so equally balanced in this House, that it required but a small addition to one side to overpower the other. In that case, one of the parties, following up the precedent now attempted to be established, might contest seats enough to give them the majority. There were men, however, in this country, who would never submit to such a daring usurpation of their righ's, but would expend their life's blood in maintaining them. Establish this precedent, Mr. R. said, and the time will come when a member coming to take his seat here, must march up to the table with his credentials in one hand, and his dagger in the other. He spoke not this in a spirit of bravado, but was merely supposing the necessity to which a man might be driven, who knows his rights and dares maintain them. Gentlemen said that the fraud involved in these returns was so manifest, that it was absolutely necessary to go behind them. But, he said, if there was fraud you cannot remedy it, for you are not a tribunal competent to try it. The jury was not empannelled; the evidence was not before it, and the case was not ready for trial. Mr. R. further contended that if there was a fraud practised on the people of New Jersey, it was a fraud which the House was not now empowered to try. But he would ask gentlemen how they arrived at the conclusion that there was a fraud practised? Did they arrive at that conclusion from the evidence of scurilous newspapers? He thought that those gentlemen who had thus prejudged the case should be estopped from hereafter sitting on the trial of it; and that justice, as well as delicacy, should prevent them from trying a cause which they had already decided.

Mr. VANDERPOEL observed that the debate, fr the last day or two, had been so much on one side, that no opportunity had been allowed of saying any thing on the other side. If he thought that its protraction would make a single convert, he wou'd be willing to sit here for a week; but every gentleman had made up his mind on one side or the other, and he did not believe that any one wou'd change his opinions, were they to sit here till doomsday. He would, therefore, move to lay the whole subject on the table.

Mr. WISE inquired whether the motion was in order.

The SPEAKER said that it was.

Mr. SHEPARD of North Carolina asked the geat'eman from New York to withdraw his motion, in order to allow him an opportunity of making a brief explanation.

Mr. GRAVES and Mr. WISE protested against the right of a gentleman who had the floor to make any such contrac's. If the gentleman from New York yielded the floor to another member, he shou'd have no right to claim it again when that member was done with his remarks.

Mr. VANDERPOEL inquired of the CHAIR if it had not been the general u-age and rule of the House for a member who had the floor to yield it

I

to another who had asked leave to make an explanation, and to take it again when that explanation had been made?

The SPEAKER answered that such had been the practice of the House; but he did not understand that there was any parliamentary law on the subject.

Mr. JOHNSON of Maryland said that where an objection was made to a member retaining the floor, after having yielded it for the purpose of an explanation, it had been decided against him, and cited a decision of Mr. Speaker Polk on that point. Mr. VANDERPOEL then said that he did not yield the floor.

Mr. WISE here rose to a point of order, and Mr. VANDERPOEL sat down. The law of 1789, he said, required that, before proceeding to business, all the members of the House must be sworn. The CHAIR had said that he would submit the question to the House for its decision, whether the members claiming to take seals as members from New Jersey should be permitted to qualify; and he had offered a resolution, in the negative form, that they should not be permitted to qualify. Now, he would ask of the CHAIR what would be the question if this resolution of his should be laid on the table? Would the question again arise, Shall these gentlemen be sworn?

The SPEAKER replied that the resolution now before the House being of a negative character, the question would naturally arise, "Shall these gentlemen be sworn?" if that resolution should be lail on the table.

Mr. McKAY referred to a case decided by Mr. Speaker Barbour, in which the question was raised whether a certain gentleman was entitled to his seat, and that question having been laid on the table, the decision was, that the rejection of a resclution in a negative form was equivalent to a decision in the affirmative. An appeal was taken, and the House reversed the decision.

Mr. ADAMS asked if a motion to lay on the table was debatable. There were no rules now binding on the House, and he did not understand that the parliamentary law prohibited debate on such motions.

The SPEAKER gave it as his opinion that the motion was not debatable.

Mr. BELL was of the same opinion with the gentleman from Massachusetts. By the common parliamentary law, motions to lay on the table were as much debatable as any other motion; and the rule that prohibited debate on them was an ar bitrary one, which did not now prevail. He hoped the CHAIR would review his decision, as several gentlemen wished to speak on the question, who had not hitherto participated in the debate.

Mr. WISE asked if he had the right to withdraw his resolution at any time?

The SPEAKER replying in the affirmative,

Mr. WISE said he would give notice to gentlemen that if this motion was persisted in, he would withdraw his resolution and renew it in some other form. Gentlemen would perceive, therefore, that they could not get rid of this question, for he could present it in some new form as often as he pleased.

Mr. VANDERFOEL a ked if he understood the CHAIR Correctly, in saying that the rejection of this resolution in a negative form, would be regarded by the CHAIR as a mandate to swear these gentle

men.

The SPEAKER made a few remarks in reply, which were very imperfectly heard by the Reporter; but he was understood to say that he would regard the rejection of the resolution as equivalent to an affirmative decision, that these gentlemen should be

sworn.

Mr. VANDERPOEL then said, that after such an intimation by the CHAIR, he would withdraw his motion.

Mr. WISE, who had the floor, said that he did not wish to proceed this evening with his remarks, and he would therefore, with the permission of the House, yield the floor to the gentleman from North Carrolina, [Mr. SHEPARD,] to enable him to make an explanation, with the understanding that he had the right to it the first thing in the morning.

Mr. SHEPARD of North Carolina observed, that this debate had been extended for two weeks,

and though he did not believe that he could throw any light on a subject on which the best talents had bee course which he had thought it that expected by been employed in the course of the debate, yet as Had been somewhat differes duty to take most gentlemen, he deemed it but justice to himself to make a brief explanation of it. When we assem⚫ b'ed here, said Mr. S. some weeks age, cer aia gentl men from the State of New Jersey appeared with certificates that they had been elected as Repre sentatives from that Sa e, similar to the one which I possess; and on referring to the laws of New Jersey, I found that the Governor of that State was authorized to receive from the judges of the elections, the returns of all the votes given, to count them up, and to give commissions to those persons who received a majority of the votes. Sir, said Mr. S. these gentlemen who claim to be admitted to their seats here, have the certificates of the Governor, stating that they were duly elected; and it seemed to him they were entitled to take their se t, and to participate in the organization of the House by the election of a Speaker. It seemed to him, then, said MF. S. that he had no more right to refuse to associate with them as members of this House, and to impeach the validity of their credentials, than they had to refuse to Associate with him, and to impeach the validity of his. The Governor of New Jersey is the offic r charged with making of the returns of election, and though not appointed by the Federal Government, his s'at ments of the returns are as binding as if he acted under our authority. The e mmissions which he gave were in conformity with the usage which had always prevailed in this country, and in the country from which our institutions were derived; and in both countries the act of the returning officer was always considered valid and binding until proved by good and sufficient testimony to be wrong or fraudu'ent. This was the view which he took at the first, and which he took now. He would not go into an argument to show the truth of this position, for it had been already so ably argued that he had too much respect for the House to consume their time with repeating arguments that had been so often used. But some gentlemen contended that fraud had been committed in giving these returns. Admit that this were the fact; yet it seemed to him that they had no right, according to parliamentary law and usage, to inquire into it at that time. The gentlemen whose seats were contested had as much right, as he believed, to inquire whether fraud had been committed with regard to his credentials, as he had to inquire with regard to theirs. Indeed fraud might be committed on all hands. The certificates of the Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, contesting the verity of these returns, might themselves be the result of fraud; and, therefore, in the preliminary stage of their proceedings, he thought they could not go into an examination of them. These reasons, and many others, which he would not trouble the House with reciting, induced him to give his votes in favor of the right of these gentlemen to take their seats. He thought they were entitled to have their names on the roll, and he therefore voted for the first proposit on of the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. WISE.] which was lost. Another resolution was offered by the same gentleman, affirming that they were entitled to take their seats, and leaving the question of ultimate right to be decided by the House, after it was organized. For this resolution he also voted. On Saturday last, the gentleman from Virginia introduced his third resolution on the subject; and on the motion to lay it on the table, he voted in the affirmative; and he had now risen more for the purpose of explaining his vote on that occasion, than to enter into an argument on the present question. When the motion to which he had referred was made, it seemed to him that they had already consumed too much time on the various questions connected with the subject, and that no good could result from keeping it any longer before the House. He thought it was time to lay aside this vexed question, and proceed at once to the organization of the House, and to the despatch of the public business. There was, therefore, no inconsistency in the two votes he had

thus given. He voted according to the dictates of his best judgment, ant subsequent reflection had con vinced him that he had acted correctly. It seemed to him that the question had been settled by the preliminary meeung, that these gentlemen should not take their seats, and participate in the organization of the House, and that it would therefore be better to leave the controversy to be decided in the ordinary way by the House, upon its merits, after the action of the Committee of Elections, He must take this occasion to say that he had voted for the two resolutions of the gentleman from Virginia, with the greatest feluctance. In what he was about to say, he begged to be understood as not wishing or intending to impeach the motives of the gentlemen from New Jersey, who came here with the Governor's certificates; nor did he wish to impeach the conduct of the Governor himself. But he must say, that when he heard the evidence read at the Clerk's table, impeaching the validity of these returns, in which it was conclusively shown that the gentlemen who contested the seats had received a majority of the votes given at the electionswhen he heard the evidence read that the clerks of two counties; Millville and South Amboy, had suppressed the vote given at these coun ties, and when he heard the evidence that the Governor himself admitted both these important facts, and, regretting that the technicalities of law prevented him from giving the returns to those who had received a majority of the votes, consoled himself with the belief that the House would do justice to all parties-when he had seen a proposal made last summer in the public papers, by the gentleman commissioned by the Governor, to throw up their commissions, and go again into a new election, thus admitting a doubt of their own rights, he could not avoid entertaining the suspicion that gross fraud had been practised. It seemed to him, Mr. S. said, that throughout the whole contest here, one party had made use of the forms and techni calities of law to cover up a mean and despicable fraud, while the other party had attempted to break down all the forms of law, in order to attain abstract justice; and being a law-loving and law-abiding man, he had voted to preserve the laws, though injustice might be the consequence. These things, Mr. S. said, were not uncom. mon in private life. A man often held possession of a tract of land to which he was not justly enti tled, and which the law would take from him upon a legal investigation and trial of his title; but the forms of law must be preserved, and the tenant in possession must retain the land until the courts decide that another has a better title to it. He would pass over other matters, (Mr. S. said,) and come down to the proceedings of yesterday; and he confessed he never was more surprised in his life than he was when, shortly after the Speaker had taken the chair, and after his administering the oath to the members of the House, he saw these five New Jersey gentlemen walk up to the table and ask to be sworn. He did not, as he said before, mean to impeach their motives; they had a right to take their own course; but he thought that motives of delicacy, as well as of expediency, should have induced them to wait for the regular action of the House. Now, did not every man see that the contest has, all along, been for the purpose of electing a Speaker, and that these gentlemen and their friends were contending for their right to participate in that election? But (said Mr. S.) the right has been violated by decisions of the House again and again, and it is too late to rectify it. The House has been organized, and the Speaker has been elected, without the participation of these gentlemen, and they can, therefore, have no good reason for insisting on taking their seats without an investigation into their right to hold them. You, sir, [addressing the SPEAKER] bave been elected as an impartial man; you and I voted to give these gentlemen their seats in the first instance, and you will doubtless deal justly and impartially in your appointment of a Committee of Elections. Then why not let this question of right be referred to that committee to be investigated on its merits, in order that the House, with a fall knowledge of all the evidence connected with it, may decide on it

camly, justly, and impartially. No injury or inconvenience would result to these gentlemen or their party by the delay. No great question would probably come before the House, in which their votes might be necessary before the decision of the House on their case. He, for one, would agree that all the great questions which were expected to come before them, should be postponed until that decision was made; yes, sir, said Mr. S. the geat financial question, on which I shall go with the Executive, and the fate of which will probably depend on the decision of these contested election cases, may be laid over until the House shall decide who shall take their seats as Représentatives from the State of New Jersey. He had merely risen, Mr. S. said, to explain the course he had taken. If any harm has been done by preventing these gentlemen from participating in the election of a Speaker, it is too late now to apply the remedy. The act has been done, and done forever, and let the country and posterity judge of its correctness. A great deal had been said about the States Rights doctrines that were involved in this question. Sir, said Mr. S. the question his as much to do with States Rights as it has with the Egyptian hieroglyphics. No man wishes 10 disfranchise the State of New Jersey. The only question is, who shall take their seats as members from that State? There was no intention of depriving any one of his rights; on the contrary, the sending this matter to a committeee, and bringing it to a thorough investigation upon its merits, was the surest way of doing justice to all. The argument had been used in the preliminary stage of the proceedings, that the House, in an imperfect state, and without a Speaker, could not enter into an examination of the evidence connected with the subject, nor try it on its merits. That difficulty was now removed. The House was now organizeda Speaker was elected, and the members were sworn. He hoped, therefore, there being no longer any obstacle in the way, that the House would take this course.

Mr. THOMPSON of South Carolina here took the floor, and replied at length to Mr. DROMGOOLE, citing various precedents to show that the gentlemen who presented themselves with the certificates of the Governor of New Jersey, were entitled to take their seats without further question; and that the House had no right to go behind these returns, or, at this s'age of its proceedings, to go into an examination of the testimony contesting their validity.

Mr. WISE obtained the floor and moved an aðjournment.

Mr. SHEPARD asked that the gentleman would withdraw the motion, so that he might have an opportunity of saying a few words in reply to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. WISE could not withdraw the motion unless it was understood that he should have the floor afterwards.

Mr. ADAMS hoped the House would permit the gentleman from North Carolina to make an explanation.

Mr. WISE then withdrew the motion to adjourn.

Mr. SHEPARD then said that he had been a humble member of the House of Representatives for the last two years, and in his course on that floor he had endeavored to be actuated by what he believed to be his duty to himself and the people he represented. He knew that, on various occastons, he had taken a course unpalatable to some gentlemen, and they had shown their disapprobation of that course by various circumstances and means. He would, however, now say to them, that he was not responsible to them, or to any body else, except the people who sent him there, and the country at large; and he hoped that, in the dis charge of his duty in that Honse, he was as far from fear as any other member on the floor. He would neither yield to flattery on the one side, nor to bullying on the other. When he rose a few moments ago, he did not rise to make an apology for his vote-he owed no apology to any body; but he rose to put himself right before his constituents and the country at large, because he knew

E

that the party organs, which were spread throughout the country, were always disposed to hold up a public man to odium. The people do not understand the rules of order in this House; and when gentlemen act differently from the views of partisans, it is easy for them to be misrepresented. And notwithstanding the remarks of the gentleman from South Carolina, he felt satisfied with the propriety of his course, and he believed that every person, untrammelled by party prejudice, would justify his conduct. He wou'd now briefly state what he had said. He had said that when we first met in this House, he believed that those members from New Jersey who had the Governor's certificates were entitled to take their seats and participate in the election of a Speaker; but he stated further, that he had strong suspicion that those men had come here through a fraud. The gentleman from South Carolina himself had strong suspicion that they came here through a fraud, if he had not misunderstood him on another occasion. He thought in the first place that they had the right to participate in the election of a Speaker. They however were deprived of that right by the House, and they did not vote for a Speaker. Then, so far as the principle was concerned, it was violated by prohibiting them from voting in the election of a Speaker; and if they had at any time a right to participate in the organization of the House, that right had been trampled upon, and it was gone forever. Then, after all th.s was done, was it not the proper course, as a Speaker had been elected who would immediately appoint committees, to let the whole matter be brought ap before a committee, and be examined, and properly decided? Last week, the argument was, that we must give faith and effect to the certificate, because the House was not organized, because there was no Speaker, no committee to examine, and collate facts. Now, sir, the case is different. You have been elected by the gentleman and his friends, because of your justice and impartiality. You can immediately appoint a committee, that will investigate the whole matter-that will bring to light the dark parts of this transaction, and do equal and full justice to all. Let the House take up the subject, and decide upon the whole question of light, now that these men have been deprived of taking seats in the first instance. Was there any inconsistency in his wishing to pursue this course? Would the gentleman from South Carolina desire to give men seats here who, upon examination, in a few days, it might be found, were not entitled to them? This was his position, and these were his views, expressed with all due respect to the great legal talents of the gentleman from South Carolina.

Sir, said Mr. S. the gentleman from South Carolina, in the conclusion of his remarks, had said that his relations with me were not such as would permit him to speak of me as he would of his honorable colleague. Although, sir, I do not fear that gentleman's lanoe, in any contest, I know that he is possessed of talents far superior to mine The gentleman seemed to know that he is much my superior in age, in learning, and in eloquence, but why did he not think of this before he commenced his attack? Why did he not attack his friend from South Carolina, who had voted with me on all these questions? That would have been more consistent with the gentleman's vaunted chivalry, which he is eternally talking about. [Laughter.] But the gentleman further says, that I had held that these men had a constitutional right to participate in the organization of the House, and contends that because they once had a constitutional right, I act inconsistently in not supporting their admission to seats at the present mo. men'. In this matter, the gentleman himself is in no enviable position. The gentleman came into this House a Nullifier, opposed to a National Bank and a high tariff; still we find him always acting with that very party which goes for a National Bank, for a high tariff, and for all those measures which he has declared to be most odious to him. If it is inconsistent in me to pursue the course I have, is it not doubly inconsistent in the

gentleman to pursue the course which he pursues? If I am inconsistent, he is still more so; and how can he justify himself to his constituents? How is it that he is struggling to get that party in power which would adopt all those Federal measures which he himself pretends to be absolutely opposed to?

In pursuing the course which I desire to pursue, I do not see that any harm can be done to any party, for I will be willing to postpone all the great questions which this House has to act upon, until the matter of this New Jersey election is finally decided upon, which can be done in a short time, as the House can proceed to it at once, and act upon it in a legal and constitutional manner.

Mr. THOMPSON said a few words in reply to Mr. SHEPARD, when

Mr. TURNEY obtained the floor, and moved to refer this resolution, together with the credentials, and all other evidence in regard to the New Jersey elections, to the Committee of Elections, and on that motion moved the previous question. On motion of Mr. WISE, The House then adjourned.

IN SENATE,

THURSDAY, December 19, 1839. Mr. PRESTON appeared in his seat this morn ing.

Mr. NORVELL gave notice that, at the appropriate time, he would ask leave of the Senate to introduce the following bills:

A bill supplementary to "An act to provide for the adjustment of titles to land in the town of Detroit, and Territory of Michigan, and for other purposes."

A bill for the relief of J. and W. Beeson, and others.

Mr. SMITH of Indiana gave notice that, as soon as it would be in order to do so, he would ask leave to introduce the following bills:

A bill to authorize the New Albany and Mount Carmel Railroad Company to enter, on a credit, a quantity of land, to aid the company in the construction of a railroad from New Albany to Mount Carmel, Illinois.

A bill for the relief of the legal representatives of Col. Francis Vigo.

Mr. ROANE gave notice that, as soon as it would be proper to do so, he would ask leave to ntroduce a bill giving the assent of Congress to an act of the General Assembly of the State of Virginia incorporating the Falmouth and Alexandria Railroad Company.

Mr. LINN gave notice that, as soon as it would be in order to do so, he would ask leave to introduce the following bills:

A bill for the relief of Pierre Menard and others. A bill to authorize payment to be made to certain Missouri volunteers, for services in the years 1829 and 1830.

Mr. BENTON offered the following resolution: Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to communicate to the Senate such information as has been received at the Treasury Department from consuls and secretaries of legation respecting the fiscal regulations in force in foreign countries, and not contained in his communication to the Senate of the date of January 21, 1839. Mr. LINN offered the following resolution: Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to cause to be communicated to the Senate any information in the Department of State, or any other Department, relative to the disputed boundary between the State of Missouri and the Territory of Iowa, and which has not been heretofore communicated to the House of Representatives; and also to communicate copies of any proclamations of the Governor of Missouri and the Governor of the Territory of Iowa in relation to said disputed boundary, and the orders, if any, for calling out, or holding the militia in readiness to act in relation to the same; and also any further information on the subject which it may be in the power of the Departments to give.

Mr. WILLIAMS offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to inquire into the expediency of in

creasing the number of copies of the laws of Congress printed for the several States and Territories under the act of 20th April, 1818.

The Senate then went into the consideration of Executive business, and afterwards Adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

THURSDAY, December 19, 1839.

The CHAIR stated the question to be on Mr. C. Jolinson's motion to refer the resolution of Mr. WISE, together with the credentials of the New Jersey members to the Committee of Elections, when appointed.

Mr. WISE rose, and stated that the gentleman from Tennessee had agreed to withdraw the motion, to allow him to address the House on his resolution, on condition that he would renew it again, which he would do with great pleasure.

Mr. WM. COST JOHNSON then rose to make a point. He considered the resolution of the gentlen.an from Virginia [Mr. WISE] as inadmissible in this House, and that, by the Constitution and laws of the United States, the Speaker was bound to swear in the members from New Jersey having the Governor's certificates. This was the point of order which he was about to make, and he made it with a view of bringing this matter to a speedy and conclusive issue. He maintained that the Speaker had no discretionary power in this matter, but that he was bound to administer the oath to these gentlemen at once.

The CHAIR said the gentleman could not proceed now, without the leave of the House on his proposition.

Mr. JOHNSON appealed to the courtesy of the House to grant him leave, and declared he would not occupy the time of the House more than five minutes He was about proceeding, when

Mr. TURNEY rose and objected to the gentleman's proceeding, inasmuch as the CHAIR had decided that it was out of order for him to proceed.

The CHAIR said he had decided that the gentleman was out of order, but as the gentleman had appealed to the House, and no objection had been made at the time, he had permitted him to proceed.

Mr. TURNEY. The gentleman did not appeal from the decision of the CHAIR to the House, therefore he could not proceed without leave of the House.

Mr. W. C. JOHNSON then asked leave of the House to proceed.

Mr. TURNEY called for the yeas and nays on this motion, which were ordered.

Mr. JAMESON wished to know if it was competent, at this late stage of the proceedings, to raise a point of order of this kind? The CHAIR had, on yesterday morning, made this decision, and after it had been debated for a whole day, the gentleman comes forward and raises a question of order this morning. Why did he not do so on yesterday morning, when the decision was made? And as the gentleman had not made it at that time, he contended it was not in order for him to make it now. If this course of proceeding was to be adopted, the House might be thrown into inextricable difficulties. Questions might be brought up and discussed for weeks, and just when the House was about coming to a decision, a question of order might be raised, which would open the whole question up anew.

Mr. W. COST JOHNSON then read his proposition to the House, and stated that it was based upon the Constitution, and hoped it would always be in order to defend the Constitution.

Mr. ATHERTON wished to know, as the CHAIR had decided the gentleman to be out of order, whether, if the House granted him permission to go on, he would not be permitted to go on out of order.

Mr. W. C. JOHNSON then withdrew his point of order, and appealed from the decision of the CHAIR of yesterday. He was sorry his proposition should create any uneasiness in the minds of any gentlemen He would assure gentlemen that he had not made this question with a view of creating any delay, but with a view of bringing it to a speedy conclusion.