27TH CONG.........3D SESS.

Continued from No. 7.

bere, sought a foreign market; and scarcely a single coin was seea in our currency. Since that time, it has constantly formed a part of our circulating medium, without driving silver away. This proves that they are equalized in intrinsic value by that standard.

The effect of the remodelled standard is apparent. It banishes terly all but French and British gold, and renders them less current, by reducing their value. American eagles and shares form but a small proportion of the gold circulation, and are quite inadequate to this end. Gold must, therefore, be excluded from its place, as silver is too cumbrous for the offices of gold decominations.

But this bill looks farther, and excludes foreign silver; for it admits only dollars and five-franc pieces, diminishing the value of Spanish dollars.

The English and French gold coinage always falls below the tawful standards-by design, it is said, at their mints; and it is found that the valuation of 1834 does not admit of recoinage here, without loss. There is good reason, then, for equal. izing according to fineness; but we object to any attempt at ex

clusion.

The whole object of the bill, if we judge by the effect, is to diminish the specie of the country; for our own coinage, with a constant foreign drain, or without it, is yet insufficient for our wants. The de ciency must be supplied with paper money. The wisdom of experience counsels no such change; and we leave it to her lessons to plead, trumpet tongued, against any measure designed to increase promises without fulfilment.

Mr. B. desired, if it was the intention of the chairman of the Finance Committee to press the bill through at this session, to have some time to examine the subject.

Mr. EVANS had no objection to accommodate the Senator from Missouri by a postponement of the subject for the present, but would certainly call up the bill at an early day, as he understood frem the directors of the mints that it was necessary the bill should be passed, in order to place foreign gold and silver coins at a fair relative value with our own. He mentioned several communications be bad bad on the subject, pointing out the necessity of this measure. He also alluded to the concurrent opinions of Mr. Gallatin and Mr. Appleton, in pamphlets published by them on the subject of the currency, both in favor of this measure.

Mr. BENTON pointed out the effect it would have of driving out foreign specie, and encoura ging, as a substitute, paper promises to pay. He asked but a day's delay, to produce evidence which he intended to bring forward on the subject.

Mr. EVANS said the bill might be laid over for ene week.

Mr. BENTON observed that he would be ready to-morrow morning to produce the evidence he alluded to.

The bill was then laid on the table for the pres.

ent.

WAREHOUSING SYSTEM AGAIN.

Mr. WOODBURY remarked that he wished to make a motion. The latter portion of the annual report of the Secretary of the Treasury relates to the warehousing system, to which were appended several documents on that subject, and, among them, was the very identical memorial which had been a few moments ago referred to the Committee on Commerce. He believed that all that portion of the report of the Secretary (including this document) was referred to the Committee on Finance, as a financial question purely. But now, as the Senate had deliberately decided that it was not a question of finance, it would be necessary to dis charge the Finance Committee from the further consideration of the subject, and to commit it to the Committee on Commerce. He made that motion.

Mr. HUNTINGTON was not aware that the report of the Secretary on the subject had been referred to the Finance Committee. He wished the general subject to go to the Committee on Com

merce.

The Committee on Finance was accordingly discharged from the subject, and it was referred to the Committee on Commerce.

The bill for the relief of Benjamin Murphy was then considered as in committee of the whole, reported to the Senate, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

On motion of Mr. WHITE,

The Senate then adjourned.

TUESDAY, JANUARY. 10, 1843.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, January 4, 1843.

Mr. BEESON presented the petition and documents of Mrs. Drusilla Gieseg, widow of Valentine Gieseg, late superintendent of the Cumberland road, praying to be refunded the amount of a judg. ment recovered in the court of Fayette county, Pennsylvania, against the estate of the said superintendent, for work done on the Camberland road: referred to the Committee of Claims.

Mr. DODGE of Wisconsin presented a petition, numerously signed by inhabitants of the town of Milwaukie, in the Territory of Wisconsin, asking Congress for an appropriation for a harbor at that town.

Also, a petition from citizens of Brown county, in the Territory of Wisconsin, asking Congress for an appropriation for the improvement of the navigation of the Fox and Wisconsin rivers.

ARMY APPROPRIATIONS.

Mr. FILLMORE, from the Committee of Ways and Means, reported a bill, making appropriations for the support of the army and military academy, and for armories and arsenals, for the half calendar year ending 30th June, 1843, and for the fiscal year, commencing 1st July, 1843, and ending 30 h June, 1844. The bill was read twice, and committed to the Committee of the Whole on the s'ate of the Union. COMPENSATION

OF DECEASED MEMBERS.

Mr. J. T. MASON submitted a resolution, directing the Sergeant-at-arms to pay the widow of the Hon. J. W. Williams, deceased, his mileage and per diem to the 21 day of January, 1843, being the day of election of his successor. [Cries of "no, no, no."] There could be no question that the executors of the deceased member were entitled to his mileage, and a portion of his per diem, as he was on his way to the seat of Government.

After some conversation with, and suggestions from, various members, Mr. MASON modified his resolution, so as to direct the Committee on Accounts to inquire into the expediency of making such payment.

Mr. L. W. ANDREWS objected to the recep. tion of the resolution.

Mr. HALSTED also objected.

Mr. J. T. MASON moved a suspension of the rules, for the purpose of receiving his resolution; which was agreed to, and the resolution was received.

Mr. HALSTED moved to amend the resolution, by substituting "the day of his death" for the "24 day of January," as the limit of the period for which the deceased member's per diem should be paid.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. STANLY said he did not see why the widow or executors of the late Hon. Richard W. Habershim, deceased, should not have the same benefit, and therefore he moved the insertion of the name of Mr. Habersham.

Mr. J. T. MASON accepted the amendment. Mr. BIDLACK said the resolution, as modified so as to pay the deceased members' mileage and per diem to the day of their death, corresponded with the precedent in the case of his late colleague, the Hon. Mr. Dimock.

Mr. J. T. MASON, under those circumstances, again modified his resolution, so as to direct the Committee on Accounts to allow to the widows of the honorable J. W. Williams and the honorable Richard W. Habersham, deceased, late members of this House, the usual mileage.

After a few words from Mr. BLACK, Mr. BRIGGS, and Mr. UNDERWOOD,

Mr. WISE inquired if either of the deceased members had started to the seat of Government?

Mr. J. T. MASON. Yes; Mr. Williams had.
Mr. WISE. And how far had be travelled?

VOLUME 12.... No. 8

From three to five miles. There was not a particle of service. He (Mr. W) never had, and never would, vote for such a resolution.

Mr. UNDERWOOD asked if there was any precedent for taking this money away from the administrators, and giving it to the widows? He saw one encroachment after another in this House, on principle; and he saw one allowance after another, which the law did not sanction. This was part of the system of making donations to the families of individual, which had been introduced into this House. Now, if they intended to pay their debts, according to law, to those individuals who started from home, they would pay the mileage and per diem as long as the member lived, and for that he would vote; but he would not vote for the allowance which the law did not sanction.

ment.

Mr. SAMSON MASON submitted an amendment, so as to direct the Committee on Accounts to inquire into the expediency of allowing this payHe said the House had no information on the subject; but be understood that Mr. Habersbam bad no even left his residence in Georgia at the time of his death; and, therefore, the resolution, in its original terms, was improper. It directed the Sergeant-at-arms to pay the usual travelling expenses and per diem; but what were the usual travelling fees paid to a member of this House before he left his residence at all? He was opposed to the adoption of this resolution as a peremptory order to the Committee on Accounts to audit the accounts for the deceased members; but he was willing that it should go as a resolution directing an inquiry into the expediency of paying the mileage and per diem in such cases; and he moved to amend the resolution accordingly.

The amendment was concurred in; and the resolution, as amended, was adopted.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.

The SPEAKER called the committees for reports, and the following were presented:

Mr. BURKE, from the Committee of Claims, reported a bill for the relief of Charles Waldron; which was read twice, and committed to the Committee of the Whole House.

He also reported, from the same committee, against the petition of Joseph H. Waring.

Mr. COWEN, from the same committee, reported a resolution to discharge the Committee of Claims from the further consideration of the case of George C. Johnston, and that it be referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. The resolution was agreed to.

Mr. PENDLETON, from the Committee on Military Affairs, reported a bill to establish two additional military posts; which was read twice, and committed to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. [This bill was understood to refer to military posts on the Columbia river.]

On the motion of Mr. STANLY, 5,000 extra copies of the report accompanying that bill were ordered to be printed.

Mr. A. H. H. STUART, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, reported a bill for the relief of John Randolph Clay, late secretary of the American legation at the court of Vienna; which was read twice, and committed to the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. MATHIOT, from the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions, reported a bill for the relief of Jacob White; which was read twice, and committed.

GENERAL JACKSON'S FINE.

Mr. BOWNE again submitted the resolution on this subject, which he offered yesterday, as published in the Globe Congressional reports.

Mr. WARREN inquired if there was not already a bill on the same subject before the House?

The SPEAKER said he had not read the bill, and was not, therefore, prepared to say what shades of difference there were between the two bills.

Mr. BARNARD objected to this mode of bringing bills before the House.

He

Mr. ARNOLD presumed the principal motive with gentlemen who brought forward bills and resolutions on this subject, was, that they might make an harangue in favor of the Old Hero. would, therefore, move to refer the resolution to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, where there was already a bill pending on this very subject.

Mr. BOWNE did not wish, on this question, to trust himself at all in making an answer to charges like those which had emanated from the member from Tennessee, [Mr. ARNOLD,] farther than to say, that gentlemen who were the most ready to impute motives of this description to others, are most apt to entertain them themselves. The motion of the gentleman from Tennessee would most certainly be liable to the objections of his colleague, [Mr. BARNARD;] for it would not be taking the ordinary incipient steps of legislation. His resolu. tion, however, did not conflict with the usual course of legislation. It proposed to instruct the Committee on the Judiciary to bring in a bill on Thursday next; and when that bill came in, it would, of course, take the ordinary channel of legislation. His colleague was mistaken in supposing there was no precedent for the resolution he offered. His recollection informed him that at the last session there was a resolution passed, instructing the Judiciary Committee to report a given bill, (the bill to repeal the bankrupt ac;) in consequence of which, that committee did report the bill; and it was in this way brought summarily before the House. His only desire (Mr. B. said) was to have this bill-which he deemed the best onebrought at once before the House, so that there might be a chance of acting on it at the present session. It must be remembered that more than one-third of the session was already gone; and therefore, if they expected to pass a bill on this subject at the present session, it must be brought speedily before the House.

[Mr. CUSHING here handed to Mr. B. the case in point, to which he alluded-being the resolution referring the petition of inhabitants of the county of Otsego, New York, to the Committee on the Judiciary, instructing said committee to report, in stanter, a bill to repeal the act establishing a uniform system of bankruptcy.]

Mr. B, having read the resolution, said that the difference between it and the one he offered was, that the first directed the committee to report a given bill, instanter; while his directed the commitee to report the bill accompanying it on the next day. He acted, therefore, in accordance with precedent, as well as parliamentary law. He would say to his colleague that his party had mistaken his ground in opposing this bill. The people had spoken on the subject; the President had recommended it to the favorable consideration of Congress; and the public press of both political parties had loudly called for action on it. His resolution could do no harm; and it would require no great length of time, and no great labor from the Judiciary Committee, to obey its instructions. Let us, then, (said Mr. B.) have this bill at once before us, so that we may act on it before the session closes.

Mr. EVERETT could not see what object the gentleman from New York had in view. A bill on this subject had already been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and was now before the Committee of the Whole House; so that if the gentleman should attain his object, the bill he now sought to introduce would take its place on the calendar after the one already on it.

Mr. C. J. INGERSOLL explained that the bill reported at the last session was referred anew to the committee at this.

Mr. EVERETT said he spoke of what was on the calendar. The gentleman, if he got a bill reported now, must have it to come in after the one already on the calendar.

Mr. BARNARD said that, after this explanation of the gentleman from Vermont, he would move to lay the whole subject on the table.

Mr. BOWNE asked his colleague to withdraw his motion for a moment, in order that he might

make an explanation, promising to renew the motion. The motion being withdrawn, Mr. B. said there was, it was true, a bill before the House at the last session, and was now on the calendar of the Committee of the Whole. But the subject at this session had been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary; and should they reach the bill on the calendar, it would be urged as an excuse for delay that the Committee on the Judiciary had not reported. Assuredly, Mr. B. said, such an excuse would be made. Mr. B. then, according to his promise, moved to lay the resolution on the table, and called for the yeas and nays, which were ordered.

On taking the question, it resulted in yeas 91, nays 107, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Adams, Sherlock J. Andrews, Arnold, Aycrigg, Babcock, Baker, Barnard, Birdseye, Blair, Boardman, Botts, Briggs, Bronson, Jeremiah Brown, Burnell, Calhoun, Childs, Chittenden, James Cooper, Cowen, Cranston, Cravens, Garrett Davis, Deberry, John Edwards, Everett, Fessenden, Fillmore, A. Lawrence Foster, Gates, Giddings, Patrick G. Goode, Granger, Green, Halsted, Henry, Howard, Hudson, Hunt, Joseph R. Ingersoll, James Irvin, James, I. D. Jones, King, Lane, Linn, McKennan, Samson Mason, Mattocks, Maxwell, Maynard, Mitchell, Morgan, Morris, Osborne, Pendleton, Powell, Rameey, Benjamin Randall, Alexander Randall, Randolph, Rayner, Ridgway, Rodney, William Russell, James M. Russell, Saltonstall, Slade, Truman Smith, Stanly, Stokely, Stratton, Alexander H. H. Stuart, Summers, Richard W. Thompson, Tillinghast, Toland, Tomlinson, Trumbull, Underwood, Warren, Washington, Edward D. White, Joseph L. White, Thomas W. Williams, Joseph L. Williams, Winthrop, Yorke, Augustus Young, and John Young-91.

NAYS Messrs. Landaff W. Andrews, Arrington, Beeson, Bidlack, Black, Bowne, Brewster, Aaron V. Brown, Milton Brown, Chas. Brown, Burke, William Butler, William O. Butler, Green W. Caldwell, John Campbell, William B. Campbell, Thomas J. Campbell, Caruthers, Cary, Casey, Chapman, Clifford, Clinton, Coles, Mark A. Cooper, Cross, Cushing, Daniel, Richard D. Davis, Doan, Doig, John C. Edwards, Ferris, John G. Floyd, Charles A. Floyd, Fornance, Gerry, Gilmer, Goggin, Gordon, Graham, Harris, Hastings, Hays, Hopkins, Houck, Houston, Hunter, Charles J. Inger soll, William W. Irwin, Jack, William Cost Johnson, Cave Johnson, Keim, Andrew Kennedy, Littlefield, Lowell, Abraham McClellan, Robert McClellan, McKay, McKeon, Marchand, Alfred Marshall, John Thomson Mason, Mathews, Medill, Meriwether, Miller, Moore, Newhard, Oliver, Owsley, Parmenter, Patridge, Payne, Pickens, Plumer, Proffit, Read, Reding, Rencher, Reynolds, Riggs, Rogers, Roosevelt, Sanford, Saunders, Shaw, Shepperd, Shields, Steenrod, John T. Stuart, Sweney, John B. Thompson, Triplett, Trotti, Turney, Van Buren, Wallace, Watterson, Weller, Westbrook, Christopher H. Williams, Wise, and Wood-107.

Mr. BARNARD then offered the following amendment:

To report to the House, with all convenient despatch, the principal and material facts in relation to the fine imposed on General Jacks n at New Orleans by Judge Hall, and the opin ion of said committee upon the material questions of law involved in the imposition of such fine, and the acts leading thereto.

Mr. BOWNE remarked, that, should the course proposed by his colleague be adopted, the matter would stand just where it did now. A report had already been made, accompanying the bill which was reported.

Mr. MERIWETHER said he should vote against the resolution of the gentleman from New York [Mr. BowNE.] The gentleman said that the people had called aloud for a remission of the fine on General Jackson. True, he admitted that fact; but the call was got up by interested politicians. He (Mr. M.) wished something to be done at the present Congress. It was many years ago when the fine was imposed. During the long period which bad elapsed, the Democratic party had often had a majority in Congress, and made no effort to have the fine refunded. Now, he wished to help to do that which they had been too modest to bring about. They would have a majority in the next Congress; and as he presumed they would be again too modest, there was a greater necessity for having the fine returned by the present. For himself, he was willing to return the fine, with interest; not because General Jackson ought to have it-not be. cause the imprisonment of Judge Hall was right— but because he believed the motives of General Jackson to be pure. He wished to do that which the friends of the General would not themselves do for their chief. He wished the committee to report the facts, and to show that censure of Judge Hall was not implied.

Mr. UNDERWOOD next obtained the floor. He commenced by referring to a pamphlet which had been recently laid upon the tables of the members, which was a republication of certain essays in the Louisville Journal on the subject of the fine, martial law, &c. He had recently heard that

the Nashville Union contained a publication from General Jackson, in which the General gave the lie direct to the statement contained in the pamphlet to which he referred. Now, he (Mr. U.) knew something of the author of this pamphlet; and he was a man of talent, and of the strictest veracity. He had also seen the statement of Louallier, and had read it over and over again. When he was on the stump in 1828, the fine, the imprisonment of Judge Hall, and all the facts connected therewith, were made the subject of daily discussion. The statements contained in the pamphlet to which he referred were then corroborated by General Jackson's friends. Now, if the fine was to be returned, he wished to see the facts reported upon by a committee of the House. If he voted against refunding the fine, it would be for the purpose of showing his condemnation of martial law; setting an example to all military men that no such thing as martial law was ever to be proclaimed [A voice: "Except in Rhode Island"] in this country.

Mr. GWIN then obtained the floor; but The SPEAKER announced the expiration of the morning hour.

Mr. BIDLACK presented a petition from Auburn, Pa., praying for the repeal of the bankrupt law.

THE BANKRUPT LAW.

Mr. EVERETT called up the orders of the day the bill to repeal the bankrupt law.

Mr. BOWNE, who held the floor, said that when he obtained the floor on yesterday, it was more with a view to end the debate than for any other object. He was satisfied, however, that the motion which he intended to bave made would, if now submitted, not be sustained by the House. He therefore, on this occasion, rose to make an ap< peal to the House; to address its sober judgment on the propriety-nay, the necessity-of bringing to a termination this debate, in order that it might proceed to the important measutes which had been brought before it. He had supposed that the subject did not need much discussion; that the bankrupt law was already sufficiently understood by the Representatives and the people; and that the House was prepared for action, and for carrying out the known will of its constituents. He felt confirmed and justified in this view, from the fact that, at the last session, when the people had not spoken so emphatically as now-when their thunders had not rolled over the country, declaring to their Representatives, in a manner not to be mistaken, that the law must be repealed,then, with hot haste, and by a strong vote, the law was repealed, so far as the legislation of this House could go. Having given this vote, the members returned to their constituents, where the will of the people was conveyed to them through many channels. Yet, with such facts before them, what did they witness? The bankrupt law under discussion; and not only its repeal delayed, but the public business deferred, and a debate going on upon everything else except the bankrupt law! What would an intelligent man from abroad-what would the constituents of Representatives sitting here say, were they to step in and hear such a debate as had taken place, when they understood that the subject before the House was the repeal of the bankrupt law? He felt humbled and mortified at the course which had been pursued. Not only had the rules appointed for the governance of the House been violated, without any call to order from the Speaker or any one else; but the very courtesies of life had been violated and set aside. He did not desire to speak censoriously, or to judge harshly; and he would on no account, intentionally wound the feelings of any member; but he would ask, is it becoming the character of an American Congress, the representatives of an enlightened and free people, to utter-nay, to listen to the language which they had heard in relation to the Chief Magistrate of the nation? Why, the fishwomen, and the inmates of Five Points establishments, would in vain endeavor to find in their vocabulary such terms as had been here poured out upon the President. Was nothing due to his station? Was there no respect left for the highest officer of the Government-for the highest officer,

in fact, in the world? Were any other man beside John Tyler, no matter how offensive politically to him, holding that station, he (Mr. B) would not venture to indulge in such language as he had heard. Nay, what convinced him the more, was the fact, that, however members might speak on the floor, in the heat and impulse of the moment, yet, when reported accurately in the public prints, they were ashamed of their declarations, and could hardly bear to be told that they had ased such language.

He did not rise to become the eulogist of the President. This was neither the time nor the occasion for such a thing; other matters were under consideration. He had adverted to the subject for the purpose of calling attention to the importance of gentlemen confining themselves to the rules, and of proceeding to the business of the people. But he would proceed further. The President had not only been called a low wretch, an unprincipled creature, a base man, together with other ignominous epithets; but we were told-and he also had it from some of his (Mr. B.'s) political friends on this door-that the Administration of John Tyler was such that no Democrat could accept an office under it. Some of the leading organs of the Democratic party held the same language; and, strange to say, in juxtaposition to a paragraph declaring that no Democrat could hold office under John Tyler, would be found another, declaring that the party could not support his Ad ministration because it was surrounded by such men as Daniel Webster and John C. Spencer! What would these organs have the President to do? Dismiss his cabinet? Who would fill their places? According to the doctrine held out, no Democrat could hold office under him at all; and the President would, therefore, find himself in a strange predicament.

He (Mr. B.) yielded to none in his attachment to the principles of his party; yet, if attachment or non-attachment to men was necessary to secure the esteem of his fellows, he feared be should be thrown overboard. Whilst this was apparently a discussion as to whether the bankrupt law should be repealed, it was in reality a discussion as to who should be President. What, he asked, did the people care who was the President? What did the masses care about the man at the head of affairs, so that the Government was well administered?

Gentlemen on the Whig side were desirous of prostrating the Administration at all hazards. They contended that the President had violated his faith and pledges. No matter what might be its principles, these gentlemen thought the Administration was to be prostrated. They declared to the Democratic party that they must avow their adherence or opposition to the Administrationthat silence would be construed into support. This appeal brought no fear upon him. Whilst he held the same doctrines he had always professed, he should, upon all occasions when measures were presented to him in the capacity of a Representaure of the people, that conformed to the principles of the Democratic party, not be found wanting in his support of this Administration. It would make no difference in his course, even if the tenant of Ashland were seated in the Presidential chair. Should the measures of that statesman accord with his notions of political economy, he would as soon support them as if they emanated from any of the chiefs of his own party-Martin Van Buren, or any one else. But the party had been told that could not rally around the Administration, because Daniel Webster was there-the great stumthing-block. He was amazed at these declaraHons. For himself, bad as he considered Daniel Webster, if Mr. W. would renounce the errors of his ways, and come into the Democratic party, he would be for receiving him into its folds, as thousands of others who had left the old Federal party before. [Laughter.]

Bad doctrine, say gentlemen. It was his doctrine; and he, for one, was not disposed to deny it; and The Democratic party, with which he acted, had reason to be proud of it. Ay, to be proud of it. (Laughter.] When great distinguished old Federalists-men noted for their intelligence, and with

talen's of a high order-renounced the error of their ways, and joined the Democratic party, for what reason should it be said that the doors are closed, and there is no admittance for you? He feared, if that rule had been applied always, he should have been able to point out gentlemen on that floor who might have been debarred entrance, and might not have occupied the places in the Democratic party which they now hold. He might, perhaps, have a little more feeling on this subject than some other gentlemen, for he was brought up a Federalist [laughter,] of the old school, [renewed laughter,] by a father who, though not an active politician, was too honest to disown the name; and he owned it to this day, and despised the shifting and changing of names which had been so often resorted to. He (Mr. B.) did not, until he was 24 years of age, enter the political arena at all; but when he did, and when he examined the question for himself, he espoused the Democratic cause. He repeated, however, that he was educated a Federalist; and if this stern, inflexible course had been adopted, he and others on that floor might have been shut out-entirely shut [Laughter.]

out.

And if he were once satisfied that Daniel Webster had changed his political creed, and was at heart a Democrat, he, for one, would be as willing to receive him, as to receive any other of those distinguished members of that party who had left it before. [Laughter.] His (Mr. BowNE's) friends said they could not take him. He had only to say that he spoke for himself. He spoke plainly his own individual feelings; and neither before the country, nor elsewhere, did he wish to have his party responsible for his views on this question. He did not know (nor did he care) what evidence Mr. Webster had given of his conversion to Democracy. He did not know that Mr. Webster had given any. He did not know that Mr. Webster desired or wished to belong to the Democratic party; but he made the remark in answer to the allegation of a gentleman yesterday, who thought there was an insuperable barrier between that party and the Administration and its measures. Now, so far as the measures of the Administration were concerned, there were those of which he approved, and had supported; and, as they came up, he should act as his judgment dictated.

But while he was attempting to reprove the course which gentlemen had taken in this debate, he had almost unconsciously fallen into that course himself. [Laughter.] He bad only intended to call the attention of the House to the strange nature of this debate, and to make an appeal to the House to bring it to a close, and to have action upon it. Did gentlemen suppose the mind of a single member could be enlightened by this debate on the bankrupt bill? Did gentlemen suppose that a single vote could be changed, if this debate should be still further tolerated? Or, did gentlemen suppose that they could escape a direct vote on the ques. tion, or that it could be shuffled off entirely to another session? Now, he would ask, were not gentlemen who professed to be in favor of a repeal of the bankrupt law willing to come to a test vote on the direct question? Or was the policy which he saw suggested some days ago, in a country paper, to be pursued by gentlemen of the North, who were to oppose repeal, that the Democrats in the next Congress might have the credit of repealing it? Was that to be the policy pursued respecting a law against which the people had unequivocally pronounced? He hoped and trusted not. Let them have a direct vote on the question. They well understood that the people desired to know whether they intended to repeal the law or not. Some gentlemen had said it was to be repealed-that the decree had gone forth; but as day after day passed away, he became more and more convinced that they should get no tion on this measure. Let but the motion of his colleague [Mr. BARNARD] be carried, and this bill referred to the Judiciary Committeethirty days of the session having gone, and twothirds of the session only remaining, with the various measures before them which called for their action, and which must be acted upon-and what time should they have, if they protracted this use

ас

less debate, to act upon it at a future period? Why, if it should go to that committee, it might come back when other measures required all their time; and then this bill would go precisely where its enemies wished it to go. He asked the House whether they might not then take the question, and whether that debate then might not cease. They heard yesterday and he listened to him with great pleasure -the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. M. BROWN,] and his colleague, [Mr. FERRIS,] who were both guilty of being so much out of order, as to discuss the bill itself. [Laughter.] He (Mr. B.) was pleased, because they dealt with the subject candidly and fairly. They heard their arguments on this subject; they heard the arguments on both sides, when the bill was passed, and they had heard them through the columns of the newspapers; why, then, delay? He should close with the remark, that he hoped they would now have action.

Mr. BARNARD was understood to ask the gentleman from New York, who had said that public sentiment called for the repeal of the bankrupt law, whether the gentleman who succeeded him in the representation of his congressional district was not an open, avowed advocate of the bankrupt law?

Mr. BOWNE was understood to reply that he believed he was; but that was not made a question in the late election. And further, the gentleman alluded to was the only advocate of the bankrupt law that he had met with in that district.

Mr. MERIWETHER said if the bankrupt law had not been made a subject of discussion at the last election, it showed that there was not much trouble on that question in that district. He went on to state that he was opposed to the repeal of the bankrupt law; he foresaw that great mischief would result from the repeal; and he intended to take the responsibility of voting against it.

He then made some passing remarks on the speeches of gentlemen who had preceded him in this debate; and said the observations of the gentleman from New York [Mr. BowNE] verified the distich

"Long as the lamp holds out to burn,

The vilest sinner may return."

Pursuing that subject (he said) from the givings out on that floor, he concluded the corporal's guard was much larger than was generally supposed; and even the gentleman from New York [Mr. BOWNE] might not be very averse to enlist. The Democratic party had many members who were not unwilling to go over; and at a meeting of Democrats, held on the 19th of December, 1842, at Frankfort, in Kentucky, (which was attended by some of the most distinguished of the Democratic party of that place,) the following resolution was adopted:

"Resolved, That Daniel Webster and John C. Spencer, the brighest luminaries of the Whig sky, have, in their transit to Democracy, formed a halo of glory around its principles." [Roars of langhter.]

According to the gentleman from New York, they were willing to take as many as would come. But he had another curious document which he wished to read. It was a letter said to have been written at the White House-at least, it was published in the Union of New York. One gentleman had said something about the voracity with which the Whigs struggled for office, or of their "voracious maw;" but it seemed, from this letter, that there was a good deal of trouble among the Democrats about the offices. He then read a letter from the Union newspaper, which dolorously depicted the troubles of the President, and likened him to a man walking along a road who was met and despoiled of hat, coat, waistcoat-yea, and breeches also. [Roars of laughter.] From this he glanced at the remarks of the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. CUSHING,] and the offering of the spoils of party at auction.

Mr. CUSHING rose, and said the gentleman from Georgia had repeated a remark which had been made several times in that House, and to which he had desired to reply; but he had not been so fortunate as to obtain the floor. He now begged the gentleman from Georgia to put his finger on a single sentence in his speech which authorized that imputation. [Laughter, and cries

of “Oh, Oh, Oh.”] He repeated his request, that the gentleman from Georgia would select from his speech a single sentence which would justify that imputation, or a sentence which the gentleman from Georgia would stand there and declare to the House was unjust in principle, and untrue in fact.

Mr. MERIWETHER said the gentleman from Massachusetts was playing the Yankee with him. He was answering one question by asking another.

Mr. CUSHING said he replied by a denial that he had said anything like that which was imputed to bim

Mr. MERIWETHER had asked the gentleman from Massachusetts whether the Whig party had bid? And the gentleman asked him to point to that part of his speech which said there was an auction. Perhaps the sale had been postponed. If so, be would say no more about it, further than, if it was, it was not for the sake of encouragement.

But he did not think that it was for want of encouragement that the sale ought to have been postponed; for they had some glorious bids-not open ones, to be sure, for it would not do for gentlemen to bid openly; they must cover up appearances. But he would ask, what better bid could be given than that of the gentleman from Indiana, who would not bid openly, to be sure; but "Mark you," said he, "I won't run against your constitutional fact."

Mr. CUSHING asked leave to make an expla nation. The gentleman from Georgia asked him if he expected the Whig party to become bidders; and, on his asking him what part of his speech authorized such a question, he charged him with playing the Yankee on him. Now, he would beg leave to ask the gentleman the same question, in substance, again; and he expected a serious and candid answer to it. Would he put his finger on a single passage of his (Mr. C.'s) speech which he considered unjust in principle, or untrue in point of fact. If he did, he (Mr. C) would bring forward some of the most distinguished men of the country, from the days of the Revolution down to the present time, in support of the doctrines there advanced.

Mr. MERIWETHER said that he had answered the gentleman already, by pointing to the whole of his speech. He could not take time to read it through for the gentleman; but he would advise him, when he went to his room, to take it up and review it again. The gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. WISE,] in endeavoring to explain it away the other day, showed that, in his opinion, it required some explanation.

But when he was interrupted, he was going to show that there was trouble in the Democratic camp, and that there was somebody at the White House, or connected with it, who would have a word to say when the proper time came, as intimated by the gentleman from Massachusetts. Here was a letter, from which he would take the liberty of reading a few extracts, written from somebody at the White House, and published in one of the New York papers. [Mr. M. here read some extracts from the letter he referred to, stating, in substance, that "Mr. Calhoun was here, and that the writer never saw him look so well; that he seemed uneasy about going into a national convention, for fear that Mr. Van Buren, who was more dexterous with the cups and balls, might cheat him out of the nomination."] Now, (said Mr. M..) here is an intimation that there is some difficulty; but he would read further on, to see if there was not some intimation of what the gentleman from Massachusetts threw out in the course of his speech. Mr. M. read as follows:

"If a storm is brewing between the Whigs and the Calhoun men, the Administration has only to remain tranquil; and if the people will only unhorse the leaders, no man would be so strong as John Tyler."

All this, Mr. M. said, went to establish the assertion of the gentleman from Massachusetts-ibat Mr. Tyler was creating a division in the Democratic ranks, in his own favor. We have heard (said Mr. M.) the confessions of the North wing of the party; but we have heard nothing, as yet, from the Southern wing. He trusted that, before this debate closed, they should hear the confessions

of that wing also. All these divisions in the Democratic party certainly showed some signs of their defeat. Why did they keep so many candidates in the field? Why did they not bring out their man, and advocate his pretensions to the Presidency? It was said that they were waiting for a national convention to reconcile their differences about men, and concentrate the opinions of the party on some particular candidate. He would not venture upon a prophecy; but there was one thing he should not be surprised at—and that was, that, when the convention should be held, they should nominate Daniel Webster for the Presidency, and John C. Spencer for the Vice Presidency-who, according to the Kentucky resolutions, which he had just read, had cast a halo of glory around the principles of Democracy.

As he remarked when he set out, he voted for the bankrupt bill, and voted for its repeal; but he should now vote against the repeal. Numbers had taken the benefit of the bankrupt act, who had been driven to it because their debtors first availed themselves of it, and in this way drove them to bankruptcy. It would be cruel and unjust, there. fore, to deprive them of the benefits of the ac1, af. ter they had been ruined by its operation. He should, therefore, vote against the repeal on these grounds, if there were no others to sustain it. Mr. M., in conclusion, contended that the act did not in its operations violate existing contracts, and was not an ex post facto law in the meaning of the Constitution.

Mr. PICKENS desired to detain the House but a few moments in relation to this subject. He was aware that it had been sufficiently discussed, and he would be pleased to see an early action upon it. Were he to legislate according to the feelings of his heart, and the sympathies of his uature, he would not deny to those unfortunates who seek for the benefits of this law the relief that it would give them. The gentleman from Louisiana, [Mr. DAWSON,] the only Democrat who voted for this law, said the other day all that could be said in its favor. He confessed (Mr. P. said) that all the sympathies of his nature were deeply roused by the gentleman's warm-hearted and feeling address; but he did not stand here to legislate according to his feelings, nor to give relief to a particular class, at the expense of the Constitution of his country. He did not mean to say that a bankrupt law could not be framed in accordance with the Constitution; and this brought him to the remark of the gentleman from Georgia on this part of the subject. The gentleman asked why this law should now be repealed, since the Constitution gave to Congress the express power to pass a bankrupt law. He agreed with the gentleman that the power was given in the Constitution, but he always considered it as the most dangerous one that could be exercised. That, and the clause giving the power to regulate commerce, were the most dangerous and uncertain powers in the Constitution-powers of which he always thought that Con. gress should be exceedingly cautious, and strict in their construction when exercising them. When the framers of the Constitution inserted the provision in it in relation to bankruptcy, they must have had in view its meaning as it was then understood from English law and English decisions. All know the statute of Henry VIII, and how extremely limited it was in its provisions. It was intended to apply to swindlers, and dishonest traders only who become bankrupt, and to make them place their assets at the disposal of their creditors. That law was, the foundation of all the English laws on the subject made since that time; and there was some doubt whether they had not done more harm than good. If, then, there were just grounds for complaint against the system in a country of limited extent like England, with a consolidated Government, how much more likely would it be to operate injuriously in a cuntry like ours, of diversity of interests and pursuits, and of twenty-six independent sovereignties?

Mr. P., after some further remarks, went on to argue against the principle of voluntary bankrupt. ey in the present law. He knew that it had been said that there was but li tle difference between an insolvent law and a bankrupt law, and the opinion

He

of the Attorney General had been given in support of this assumption; but Mr. P. contended that there was a broad distinction between them. The insolvent law was intended for the benefit of the debtor; while the bankrupt law was intended for the benefit of the creditor, and to provide that the assets of his debtor should be paid over for his use. Now, when a bankrupt law contained within it the voluntary principle of bankruptcy, allowing the debtor at his option to relieve himself from his ob. ligations to his creditors, it was nothing but an insolvent law, and, therefore, entirely out of the meaning of the clause in the Constitution referred to. He would, therefore, make the act, if he passed one at all, in strict conformity with the meaning of bankruptcy, as it was understood at the time the provison on the subject was inser ted in the Constitution: the meaning of bankruptcy, as laid down in Blackstone, was precisely the one that he would be goverend by. thought that the present law was unconstitutional;because it clearly interfered with existing contracts, and clearly an cx post facto law; and he held that gentlemen who supported it were bound to argue that Congress had a right to interfere with contracts, and make an ex post facto law In fact, a gentleman at the last session did take such grounds; and what was his argument? Why, that Congress could interfere with contracts, because the power was prohibited to the States. This was a perfect solecism, and an argument he never ex. pected to have heard. He had though: that this was a Government of limited powers, and confined within the provisions of a written Constitution. But, if such doctrines prevailed, it would sweep within the powers of the Federal Government all the contracts within the country, all the relations between debtor and creditor, and nearly all the transactions of private life. Were gentlemen aware of the tremendous powers they claimed for the Federal Government, by adopting such an ar gument as this? Credit and confidence between man and man would be broken up. No man would trust his neighbor; and all business would be destroyed, if it should be decided that the Fed. eral Government could step in and interfere with contracts, releasing the debtor from the obligations ke had entered into, and thereby depriving the creditor of a portion of his property. If gentlemen took it on this ground, they were compelled to take the argument that this Government can interfere with contracts, and pass ex post facto laws. It was a power that would shake the very foundations of civilized society; and, of course, it was not granted to this Government by the framers of the Constitu tion. It was on this ground principally that he was in favor of a repeal of the law. It had been argued that it should be retained, because all the barm that could be done under it had been done already, and that there were numbers who, having been dri en into bankruptcy by it, were now, in justice, entitled to its benefi's. Much had been said to excite the commiseration of the House for this class of unfortunate persons. Though he loved the altribute of mercy, he was still bound to do justice. He would not do evil that good might follow. He was for doing equal and exact justice to all, and would not, for the sake of indulging in the kindly feelings of his nature, trample on the Constitution of his country. Mr. P. next went into an argument against the proposition of the gentleman from New York, to include banks and other corporations in the provisions of the bankrupt law. He asked if the gentleman had reflected on the alarm ing consequences that would follow the successful termination of his motion. What, he asked, would be left to the States, if this proposition should be carried into effect? Their churches, their railroads, their school corporations, and private chartered companies of every description, would be swept away. He was as much opposed to banks as any gentleman on that floor, and had assailed them with all the energies of which he was capable, when other gentlemen, who were now so ready to attack them, quailed under their power. He was utterly and irreconcilably op posed to them; but he would not, for the sake of getting at them, sweep away that noble instrument, on which our liberties rest. Look at Alabama,

whose State Bank is a part of her financial system. Look at South Carolina, which was largely interested in her banks. Would gentlemen have these to be placed at the mercy of the Northern and Eastern banks, to sue out commissions of bankruptcy against them, and drag them down to ruin? What would be the effect of such a provision on the banks of the South and Southwest? Exchanges were generally against them, and in favor of the Northern and Northeastern banks, and they would be placed at the feet of New York and New England. The provision the gentleman sought to introduce would be, in effect, a tremendous bank of the United States, with branches in the North and East, having the power to ruin the Southern banks at their pleasure. Having said all that he intended to say on the bill before the House, he would now briefly touch on the incidental subject that had been brought forward in the debate.

The gentleman from Massachusetts the other day made a very extraordinary speech; and that speech had been quoted variously by different members on that floor, as well as by the public press. He did not know that he understood the gentleman exactly; but if he meant to say (as charged against him by several gentlemen, and by the newspapers) that the power and patronage of the Government were to be held for the purpose of sustaining the Administration in office, and for palling down and putting up political aspirants, be could only say to the gentleman that he rampled such doctrines with scorn under his feet. The gentleman knew that he (Mr. P.) stood up here in opposition to power and patronage, when it required some nerve to do so; and he now could not be diverted from the line of conduct his principles bad marked out for him, either by fear or favor. He wanted nothing from any Administration, and would fearlessly do his duty to his country and the people he represented, without looking to any Administration for its approbation. Not that he bad any objection to the present President of the United Statesn; on the contrary, he respected his character and his integrity. He had been abused and traduced grossly and unjustly, and he had his (Mr. P.) sympathies on that account.

He would say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, that he rejoiced to see him

standing

in the position in which he now stood. He would do the gentleman the credit of saying that he had always had a leaning to Demo. cratic principles. [A laugh.] He had great cause to congratulate the country, and the gentleman himself, that, atthough he had been the most violent altra-though he had been actually so full of rancorous abuse, that even he (Mr P) had shuddered with fear, [laughter,]-though the gentleman and a colleague of bis (another of the guard) had been so violent in denunciation that be (Mr. P.) had actually shuddered lest he should be robbed of his seat-yet he bad now canse to congratulate them that they had at last embraced the truth. He did not believe they were leaving the trub; because, according to the adage, "truth was mighty and would prevail," and that could hardly be said of the cause they were leaving. Greeks well understood the frailty of poor human naute, They represented the Goddess of Wisdom with a crown upon her head, clothed with the trappings of power, and sitting in imperial state. They sought to make her attractive. They well understood nature when they represented Wisdom invested with the trappings and symbols of power.

The

He would not say the gentlemen only loved truth because presented to them in this form; but he would say this-that those gentlemen with whom he (Mr. PICKENS) acted, acted upon broad principles: and, as to the divisions which were supposed to exist in the Republican party, he knew nothing of them. He did not believe that any serious divisions existed. He believed there were no divisions but such as might be reconciled, with prudence and judgment. He could see no cause for the least want of harmony. They stood upon the broad principles of the Constitution.

He would tell the gentlemen, that one of the principles upon which he would not be found barmonizing with them, was the question of free trade. The bank question he considered dead; but, as to

this question of free trade, he would tell the gentlemen-those who may come into power-let them c me in as they may, the banner of free trade will wave, whether on the part of the Administration or of the opposition. Those principles which were identified with the best interests of the country would prevail.

Did they ask for favor? No, sir. He could as sure them, (and there were gentlemen there who knew the faci,) that if he had thought proper to fawn and flatter, he could have borne the trappings of office; but he scorned to dress himself in the livery of any man, he cared not what power or what patronage he might wield. He went for his country-for the Constitution of his country-the constitution and righ's of South Carolina against the world. [A laugh] He would be unworthy of the place he occupied, if he could have suffered his mouth to be muzzled. He contended not for the sake of paltry, party triumph. No: he scorned, he despised the thought; it was for those great principles which it had been the pride and glory of his life to contend for.

As for the divisions in the Whig party, he knew nothing about them; others were better informed. He could only say that he felt a sincere sympathy for them. They came into power under the most abandoned and profligate principles; and now they were about to be dissolved, without much regard to principle. [Laughter.] In reply to the famous Kentucky orator, he would say they (the Whigs) were standing aghast at the handwriting on the wall which proclaimed their guilt.

Mr. PROFFIT said he presumed no man, reading the reports of the debates in that House, could suppose that they were discussing the bankrupt bill. He could tell them what the feeling of the country was in relation to the repeal of the bankrupt law, and in regard to the insincerity which had marked the proceedings of the majority there. The bankrupt bill had always been in a minority; it was laid on the table by 13 or 17 votes; and afterwards taken up by means of a caucus, and passed by a minority-five members standing behind the columns, and refusing to vote. The bill passed against the known will of the people of the United States-against the will of those who sent the members of that House to Congress. And he would tell those gentlemen, by whose votes it passed, that, when they returned home aud met their constituents face to face, they found that it was for their interest to return here, and vote for its repeal, before it could go fairly into effect. They now found themselves called upon by the country to repeal the bankrupt law. They were now in the very same condition that they were in last year, in regard to the pay of members. All were in favor of the repeal of the bill, and yet they could never get a dozen votes in its favor. If gentlemen supposed the people would not understand them, they were greatly mistaken. He would now say a word to the Democratic party; for, thank God, he stood in a situation where he cared not whether he pleased or displeased either party. [A laugh.] He had said so at home, and he repeated it here. A plague on the heads of both. He would now tell the gentlemen what was the condition of the Democratic party. Every man of them was anxious to have the bill passed, but did not want to take the responsibility of voting for its repeal; desiring to throw all the odium possible on the Whig party for having voted for its passage. And now they say you do not intend to repeal it, but intend to keep up the divisions and dissensions which exist here. He would say, then, to the Democrats, Do not, when you go home, charge it upon the Whig party that they were un. willing to repeal the law. You know that you said at the last session you were opposed to i; if so, walk up; let us have no humbugging; walk up to the work, and repeal it. He (Mr. P.) clearly saw that the law was not going to be repealed in that House; and the only hopes he had, were, that a bill would come from the Senate for its repeal.

Gentlemen said, strike out the voluntary clause. But did not gentlemen see that that would be perfectly useless? Did they not suppose that it would be an easy thing for a man to go to some good friend, and say, Force me

into bankruptcy? Might not a man compel his credtor to drive him into involuntary bankrup'cy? All systems connected with this sort of business were liable to fraud. He believed he had spoken very plainly in regard to this matter. He held it to be the duty of every Democrat in that House to walk right up and vote for the repeal of the bill. He. believed that nine out of ten of all parties were really in favor of its repeal. He had not impugned the motives of any one; he had but expressed his own opinions.

He had heard a good deal about putting up the Administration at auction. He would ask the gentlemen what they had to offer them in case they should come forward and repeal the bankrupt law? It was the most laughable thing be had ever heard of. What would the gentlemen give them? Did they mean to go upon the credit system? He (Mr. P.) was not disposed to sell himself upon credit. [Laughter.] He would tell the Whigs how it was possible for them as a party, having among them men of intelligence, of tact, of ingenuity, to permit themselves to be drawn into such a debate as this. Would they acknowledge that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. CUSHING] might, at any time he chose, draw them into a debate which must end in their defeat as a party? They bad been accused of wasting the time of the Hou e; but to allow such a debate as this to go on, and to continue, day after day, talking about Captain Tyler and Democracy, without doing anything, was the greatest abuse of time that had yet occurred. He gave them his advice freely: he did not intend to charge them There were some anything for it. [A laugh.]

few on whom the responsibility would fall: they could gain nothing by it politically-they could not injure the Administration. They might but their heads against it; but they would be likely to get their brains knocked out, if they had any. [A laugh.] When he acted with the Whig party, be never fought with shadows-he bad sought out the substances, and combatted them. The overthrow of that party he should attribute to his having left them. [A laugh.]

He knew not exactly what the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. CUSHING] intended to intimate, in the declaration made by him to the House a few days since; but he knew that his friend had some peculiarities of expression. [Laugh'er.] He wished he could imitate his compressing and condensing power of style; for his friend from Mas-achusetts could put into one sentence what other men would occupy a whole speech with. But was it wonderful that he should have said that persons connected with this Administration would have something to say in the next presidential election? Did gentlemen suppose that his (Mr. P.'s) tongue could be kept still? [Laughter.] Did they suppose that Daniel Webster would say nothing?that man whom they were constantly braying at as wolves at the moon? [Laughter.] Did they suppose that John C. Spencer would say nothing?that his friends from Massachusetts, [Mr. CUSHING] Virginia, [Mr. WISE,] and himself, as well as others, would say nothing? [Laughter ] Theybe could assure the gentlemen-were accustomed to have some thing to say; and he hoped they would not be denied that poor privilege. He ca ed not who might be the candidate, nor how much might be said about political consistency or inconsist

cncy.

He then went into a series of reminiscences of scenes in the House during the late campaignthe calling of the previous question-the course pursued by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. PICKENS] in that contest-the remarks make by Messrs. Vanderpoel and Dromgoole. He next proceeded to comment upon an article in the November number of the Democratic Review, in which the exchequer was condemned, and the re-establishment of the sub-treasury recommended with modifications. This writer in the Democratic Review, who always wrote with sense, proposed that there should be a separate vault in the sub-treasury for private deposites; certificates to be sold at a small premium, in order to “ accommodate the people." Hence, he drew the inference that the exchequer, in its essential features, was popular with the Democratic party.