to the courtesy of his colleague not to interrupt him.

Mr. WISE. I shall not interrupt my colleague, unless he egregiously misrepresents or misquotes

me.

Mr. BOTTS. I hope my colleague does not intend to charge me with a design to misrepresent him.

Mr. WISE observed, that he could not enter into what were the designs of his colleague; but he could say that his colleague could not more effectually misrepresent him than by proceeding as he had.

Mr. BOTTS resumed. His colleague had contended that, in the former instance, when he [Mr. WISE] moved the resolution of inquiry, the charge against a member of Corgress was preferred by a responsible individual, [Matthew L. Davis, ] known as the "Spy in Washington." Now, if a charge adduced by such a man-a respectable letter-writer -was competent to cause Congress to order a committee of investigation, the case was much stronger, and the reason for a committee of investigation greater, when a grave charge was made by the Secretary of War. If it was true that the Whig party was willing to postpone the consideration of great national questions, only to secure certain individuals in office, they would indeed be subjected to a grievous charge. He (Mr. B.) would not accuse the Secretary of War of fabri cating the charge; yet he had endorsed it, and it was but right that the names of those who had made the charge, or given information to the Sectary, should be surrendered. Was there a Whig here, who knew any foundation for such an accusation? If there was, he demanded that such should stand up and speak. He pronounced it a foul and atrocious calumny on the Whig party, put forth on the eve of an election, and calculated to operate to the prejudice of that party. He (Mr. B.) did not claim to be a leader of the Whig party; yet he was on terms of intimacy, and closely connected in his personal and political relations with

Here Mr. CUSHING called to order, and suggested that the remarks of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. BOTTS] did not relate to the question of order pending before the House, but treated of things which would have to be considered after the House shall have ordered the inquiry asked for by the gentleman.

Mr. BOTTS said that the gentleman from Massachusetts had not raised any objection to the remarks of his colleague [Mr. WISE] as being out of order.

The CHAIR said that he had indulged both of the gentlemen from Virginia out of order.

Mr. WISE. I ask the Speaker never to indulge me out of order. I was not conscious of being out of order. I ask for no indulgences. I never get any.

After a brief; but inaudible explanation from the SPEAKER

Mr. BOTTS resumed. He was going on to say, when interrupted, that, though not a leader of the Whig party, yet such were bis intimate personal and political associations with the members of that party, that he did not believe it could have been possible for such a proposition as that charged by the Secretary of War to have been made to the President, without his having heard something of it. The letter of the Secretary of War was more adroitly written, more ingenious, and bet er calculated to produce an impression against the Whig party, than anything he had ever seen. He maintained that the House should inquire into the truth of the charge which it made. If true, let the Secretary of War stand exonerated; let those who informed him stand exonerated, and the burden of the accusation be thrown upon such members of the House as might have furnished the information. If, however, the charge was false-if the Secretary had no authority for making it, let the falsehood be branded on the forehead of the fabricator. This would be the consequence: it was for this purpose that he desired investigation. Would the members of the late cabinet have consented to retain their places upon such terms as those stated by the Secretary of War? He (Mr. B.) knew of

but one who would have consented to such condi tions, and the Whig party did not hold themselves responsible for him. They had no sympathy for him in the course he was pursuing.

Here some conversation ensued between the SPEAKER, Mr. WISE, and Mr. BOTTS. The latter had resumed his remarks, and was discussing the objects of the Whig party at the extra session, when he was called to order for irrelevancy. He then concluded by submitting his resolution to the consideration of the House.

The SPEAKER, after remarking upon the sudden manner in which this point of order had sprung up for decision, and repeating his averment that there was a difference between "a question of privi lege" and "a privileged question," remarked that he could find no instance on record where the Chair had entertained of himself, and settled, what was a question of privilege; on the contrary, he found numerous instances where the House had settled it. The question must come up, "Shall the resolution be received as a question of privilege?" If no member called for the question, it would be the duty of the Chair to submit it.

Mr. WISE inquired whether it would require a majority, or two-thirds, to receive the resolution as a question of privilege?

The SPEAKER answered, A majority.

Mr. WM. COST JOHNSON moved to lay the whole subject on the table; but withdrew his motion at the request of

Mr. GRANGER, who expressed a desire to speak.

Amid many cries of "hear him," much confusion, and an objection on the part of Mr. BowNE, The SPEAKER decided that the gentleman could only proceed by general consent.

Mr. WISE inquired whether an opportunity would be afforded him of replying to the gentleman from New York, [Mr. GRANGER.] [Cries of Yes ] Mr. BOWNE then withdrew his objection; after which,

The SPEAKER said the gentleman from New York [Mr. GRANGER] might proceed by universal

consent.

Mr. WISE wished it to be understood that he united in this universal consent only on condition that an opportunity should be afforded him to reply. Without this, he should positively object to the gentleman's proceeding.

Mr. GRANGER. Considering the peculiar re. lation of the gentleman [Mr. WISE] to the President, I take my seat under objection from that quarter.

Mr. WISE made some remarks not heard above the noise prevailing, but understood to be an expression of his willingness that the gentleman from New York should proceed, provided his remarks did not call for a reply.

Mr. W. W. IRWIN rose and objected; at which stage of the proceedings,

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

This motion was rejected-yeas 86, nays 99, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Sherlock J. Andrews, Arrington, Atherton, Becson, Black, Boyd, Brewster, Briggs, Aaron V. Brown, Chas. Brown, Burke, William Butler, Green W. Caldwell, John Campbell, Cary, Casey, Chapman, Clifford, Clinton, Mark A. Cooper, Cowen, Cross, Daniel, Dawson, Dean, Doan, Eastman, Ferris, Fessenden, John G. Floyd, Charles A. Floyd, Gerry, Giddings, Gilmer, Patrick G. Goode, Gustine, Hastings, Hays, Hopkins, Houck, Houston, Hubard, Hunter, William W. Ir. win, Jack, William Cost Johnson, Cave Johnson, I. D. Jones, Keim, Littlefield, Lowell, Abraham McClellan, McKay, Mal lory, Marchand, Alfred Marshall, Samson Mason, Mathews, Maxwell, Medill, Meriwether. Miller, Mitchell, Moore, Morris, Newhard, Parmenter, Partridge, Pickens, Plumer, Read, Rey. nolds, Riggs, Rogers, Saunders, Shaw, William Smith, Sayder, Steenrod, Stokely. Stratton, Sumter, Jacob Thompson, Warren, Watterson, Westbrook, Christopher H. Williams, and Winthrop-86.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Landaff W. Andrews, Arnold, Bab. cock, Baker, Barnard, Barton, Bidlack, Birdseye, Blair, Boardman, Borden, Botts, Bowne, Jeremiah Brown, Burnell, Patrick C. Caldwell, Thomas J. Campbell, Caruthers, Chittenden, John C. Clark, Staley N. Clarke, James Cooper, Cranston, Cravens, Cushing, Garrett Davis, Richard D. Davis, Deberry, John Edwards, Egbert, Everett, Fillmore, A. Lawrence Foster, Gm ble, Gates, Goggin, William O. Goode, Gorden, Halsted, Har ris, Henry, Holmes, Howard, Charles J. Ingersoll, Joseph R. Ingersoll, James Irvin, James, John P. Kennedy, Andrew Kennedy, Lane, Linn, Robert McClellan, McKennan, Thomas F. Marshall, Mathiot, Mattocks, Maynard, Morgan, Morrow, Os. borne, Owsley, Payne, Pendleton, Powell, Ramsey, Reding, Ridgway, Rodney, Roosevelt, William Russell, James M. Rus. sell, Sanford, Shepperd, Slade, Truman Smith, Stanly, Strat.

ton, Alexander H. H. Stuart, Summers, Taliaf rro, John E.: Thompson, Richard W. Thompson, Toland, Triplett, Trisbull, Turney, Underwood, Van Buren, Van Rensselaer, Wa lace, Ward, Washington, Weller, Joseph L. White, Joseph L Williams, Wise, Wood, Augustus Young, and John Young -99.

Mr. BOTTS now submitted a modification of his proposition, by striking out the words "the Why party" in the original resolution, and inserting “the. members of Congress." [Laughter.]

Mr. WISE remarked that his colleague's resolu tion purported to be partly an extract from the let ter of Mr. Spencer, in which the words "the Whig party" were used, and not "the members of Congress." He therefore called for the reading of the portion of the letter referred to, and also the resolution offered by his colleague.

They were read accordingly.

Mr. PICKENS desired to know if the Speaker presented the question of reception as involving a privileged question? For if the Chair put it to the House to decide whether the resolution of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. BOTTS] involved a priv ileged question, it then became a grave question of the deepest interest, in which the rights and honor of the House were concerned, and a decision should be made that could stand the test of time. He agreed with the Chair, that it was for the House, and not for the Speaker, to decide as to its privileges. He (Mr. P.) did not wish to interfere in this controversy at all; but whether it involved the privileges of the House or not, was a question above all party interests.

The SPEAKER gave an affirmative answer. Mr. BIDLACK made a few remarks, not distinctly heard.

Mr. WISE asked to be excused from voting. He was placed in a dilemma, by the form in which the question would be put to the House. Were the question as to whether the resolution of his colleague was a question of privilege, put separate ly from the question of reception, he should vete with pleasure. As it was, if he voted ay, be should be voting that the resolution was a question of privilege, which he did not think; yet, he was anxious to receive the resolution, although not as & privileged question. With these remarks, he withdrew his request to be excused from voting.

Mr. C. J. INGERSOLL inquired what would be the effect of the reception of this resolution as a question of privilege? Would it come up for the immediate consideration of the House?

The SPEAKER said Yes; and that it would override all other business.

The question was then taken, Shall the resolu tion be received as a question of privilege? and decided in the negative-yeas 85, nays 106, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Adams, Landaff W. Andrews, Arnold, Aycrigg, Babcock, Barnard, Birdseye, Blair, Borden, Bots, J. Brown, Wm. Butler, Wm. B. Campbell, Thos. J. Campbell, Caruthers, Chittenden, John C. Clark, Staley N. Clarke, James Cooper, Cranston, Cravens, Garrett Davis, Deberry, John Ewards, Everett, Fillmore, A Lawrence Foster, Gamble, Goggis, Halsted, Henry, Howard, Hudson, Charles J. Ingersoll, Josep R. Ingersoll, James Irvin, James, Isaac D. Jones, John P. Ken nedy, Lane, Linn. McKennan, Thomas F. Marshall, Samson Mason, Mathiot. Mattocks, Maynard, Meriwether, Moore, Mor gan, Morrow, Osborne, Owsley, Pearce, Pendleton, Powell, Ramsey, Rayner, Ridgway, Rodney, William Russell, James M. Russell, Shepperd, Slade, Truman Smith, Stanly, Stokely, Stratton, Alexander H. H. Stuart, Summers, Taliaferro, John B. Thompson, Richard W. Thompson, Tilling hast, Toland, Tomlinson, Triplett, Trumbull, Turney, Van Rensselaer, Wallace, Warren, Washington, Joseph L. White, Augustus Young, and John Young-85.

NAYS-Messrs. Allen, Sherlock J. Andrews, Arrington, Atherton, Baker, Beeson, Bidlack, Black, Bowne, Boyd, Brewster, Briggs, Bronson, Aaron V. Brown, Charles Brown, Burke, Burnell, William O. Butler, Green W. Caldwell, Patrick C. Cald well, John Campbell, Cary, Casey, Chapman, Clifford, Clinton, Mark A. Cooper, Cowen, Cushing, Daniel, Richard D. Davis, Dawson, Dean, Doan, Eastman, Ferris, Fessenden, Charles A. Floyd, Gates, Gerry, Giddings, Gilmer, Patrick G. Goode, Gordon, Gustine, Harris, Hastings, Hays, Hopkins, Houck, Houston, Hubard, Hunter, William W. Irwin, Jack, William Cost Johnson, Cave Johnson, John W. Jones, Keim, Andrew Kennedy, Littlefield, Lowell, Abraham McClellan, Robert McClellan, McKay, McKeon, Mallory, Marchand, Alfred Marshall, Mathews, Maxwell, Medill, Miller, Mitchell, Morris, Newhard, Parmenter, Patridge, Payne, Pickens, Plumer, Read, Reding, Reynolds, Riggs, Rogers, Roosevelt, Sanford, Saunders, Shaw, William Smith, Snyder, Steenrod, Sumter, Jacob Thompson, Underwood, Van Buren, Ward, Weller, Westbrook, Christopher H. Williams, Joseph L. Williams, Winthrop, Wise, and Wood

-106.

Mr. BOTTS thereupon remarked, that the Whig party in Congress stood purged and acquitted of the charges brought against them by the honorable Secretary. He had shown that he did not shrink

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

Continued from No. 3.

from an investigation into their truth or falsebood.

REPEAL OF THE BANKRUPT LAW. Mr. EVERETT asked leave, pursuant to notice, to introduce a bill to repeal the bankrupt law; and he wished it to be put on its second reading, and printed. [Objections were made from all parts of the House.] He would move, then, the suspension of the rules, that it might be received.

Mr. HOPKINS called for the yeas and nays on the motion to suspend; and they were ordered, and, being taken, resulted-yeas 137, nays 63, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Adams, Landaff W. Andrews, Arrington, Atherton, Barton, Beeson, Bidlack, Birdseye, Boardman, Botts, Bowne, Boyd, Brewster, Brockway, Bronson, Aaron V. Brown, Charles Brown, Jeremiah Brown, Burke, William Butler, William O. Butler, Green W. Caldwell, Patrick C. Caldwell, Calhoun, William B. Campbell, Thomas J. Campbell, Carruthers, Casey, Chapman, Clifford, Clinton, Mark A. Cooper, Cowen, Cravens, Cross, Daniel, Garrett Davis, Richard D. Davis, Dean, Deberry, Doan, Eastman, John C. Edwards, Egbert, Everett, Ferris, John G. Floyd, Charles A. Floyd, ForDance, A. Lawrence Foster, Gamble, Gerry, Gilmer, Goggin, William O. Goode, Gordon, Gustine, Hastings, Hays, Holmes, Hopkins, Houck, Houston, Ilubard, Hunter, Charles J. Inger. Boll, Jack, Cave Johnson, John W. Jones, Keim, Andrew Kennedy, Linn, Littlefield, Lowell, Abraham McClellan, Robert McClellan, McKay, McKennan, McKeon, Mallory, Marchand, Alfred Marshall, Thomas F. Marshall, Mathews, Mattocks, Medill, Miller, Mitchell, Morris, Newhard, Parmenter, Pa. tridge, Payne, Pic kens, Plumer, Ramsey, Read, Reding, Reynolds, Riggs, Rogers, Sanford, Saunders, Shaw, Shepperd, Slade, Truman Smith, William Smith, Snyder, Follers, Steenrod, Stokely, Alexander H. II. Stuart, Summers, Sumter, Taliaferro, John B. Thompson, Richard W. Thompson, Jacob Thompson, Tilling hast, Triplett, Trumbull, Turney, Underwood, Van Buren, Wallace, Ward, Watterson, Weller, Westbrook, Wise, Wood, and Augustus Young-137.

NAYS-Messrs. Allen, Sherlock J. Andrews, Arnold, Ay. crigg, Baker, Barnard, Blair, Borden, Briggs, Chittenden, John C. Clark, S. N. Clarke, J, Cooper, Cranston, Cushing, Dawson, Fessenden, Fillmore. Gates, Giddings, Granger, Halsted, Henry, Howard, Hudson, Joseph R. Ingersoll, James Irvin, James, William Cost Johnson, Isaac D. Jones, John P. Kennedy, Lane, Mathiot, Maxwell, Maynard, Meriwether, Moore, Morgan, Morrow, Pearce, Pendleton, Powell, Benjamin Randall, Ridg way, Rodney, William Russell, James M. Russell, Stanly, Stratton, Toland, Tomlinson, Van Rensselaer, Warren, Wash ington, Joseph L. White, Christopher H. Williams, Joseph L. Williams, Winthrop, Yorke, and John Young-63.

The rules were therefore suspended by a majority of two-thirds.

Mr EVERETT then introduced his bill, which was read a first and second time. It was as fol. lows:

A BILL TO REPEAL THE BANKRUPT ACT. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That an act entitled "An act to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States," approved on the nineteenth day of August, eighteen hundred and forty one, be, and the same hereby is repealed; Provided, That this act shall not affect any case or proceeding in bankruptcy commenced before the fifth day of December, eighteen hundred and forty two; er any pains, penalties, or forfeitures, incurred under such

act.

Mr. EVERETT moved that the bill be printed, and that it be made the special order for Tuesday

next.

After some conversation between Mr. EVER. ETT, Mr. BARNARD, and the SPEAKER,

Mr. BARNARD moved that the bill be committed to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. EVERETT said, in his opinion, it would not be necessary to commit it.

Mr. J. R. INGERSOLL suggested that a day more distant than the one named by the gentleman from Vermont should be fixed, that gentlemen might have an opportunity to hear from their constituents, whose opinions might possibly regulate the judgment of some gentlemen. He, therefore, moved to strike out "Tuesday next," and insert "Tuesday week."

Mr. EVERETT thought the time he had fixed long enough.

Mr. PAYNE gave notice that, at the proper time, he should move to strike out the proviso.

Mr. CAVE JOHNSON said the sooner they got rid of this question the better; and, therefore, he moved to make it the special order for to-morrow. Mr. BARNARD hoped, when it was printed, the House would consent to act with that deliberation in this case which marked their proceedings in

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1842.

others; and that they would consent to commit this bill to a standing committee.

The question was then taken on the motion of Mr. J. R. INGERSOLL, to postpone the bill to this day two weeks; which was lost-only 52 voting in the affirmative.

The motion of Mr. CAVE JOHNSON, to postpone until to morrow, was also lost; the vote being 78 in the affirmative, and 85 in the negative.

The question then recurred on the motion of the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. EVERETT] to print and postpone until Tuesday next; which was agreed to.

TAMPERING WITH THE EXECUTIVE.

Mr. UNDERWOOD said he had voted against the resolution of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. BOTTS] as a question of privilege; but he was anxious to ascertain the fact, if any gentleman had been tampering with the Executive. If such were the fact, he wished those gentlemen to be exposed to the public indignation; and, therefore, he desired to offer a resolution which he had prepared.

Mr. FILLMORE hoped the gentleman from Kentucky would give way, so that some Executive communications now on the Speaker's table might be received, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. UNDERWOOD said it would occupy but a moment to dispose of his resolution, and the Executive communications could be received immediately after.

Objections were made to the reception of the resolution of the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. UNDERWOOD moved a suspension of the rules for the reception of his resolution.

Mr. CUSHING called for the yeas and nays; which being ordered, resulted as follows-yeas 109, nays 78; which being less than a majority of twothirds, the motion to suspend the rules did not prevail.

YEAS-Messrs. Adams, Landaff W. Andrews, Arnold, Arrington, Aycrigg, Babcock, Barnard, Barton, Bidlack, Birdseye, Blair, Boardman, Borden, Bolts, Jeremiah Brown, Wil. liam Butler, Calhoun, William B. Campbell, Thomas J. Campbell, Caruthers, John C. Clark, Staley N. Clarke, J. Cooper, Mark A. Cooper, Cranston, Cravens, Cushing, Garrett Davis, Deberry, John Edwards, Everett, Fillmore, A. Lawrence FoB ter, Gamble, Goggin, Gordon, Halsted, Henry, Holmes, C. J. Ingersoll, J. R. Ingersoll, James Irvin, James, Isaac D. Jones, John P. Kennedy, Andrew Kennedy, Lane, Lion, Littlefield, Lowell, Robert McClellan, McKennan, Mallory, Thomas F. Marshall, Samson Mason, Mathiot, Mattocks, Meriwether, Morgan, Morrow, Osborne, Owsley, Payne, Pearce, Pendleton, Powell, Ramsey, Benjamin Randall, Rayner, Reding, Ridgway, Rodney, William Russell, James M. Russell, Saltonstall, Shep. perd, Slade, Truman Smith, Sollers, Stanly, Stokely, Stratton, Alexander II. II. Stuart, Summers, Taliaferro, John B. Thomp. son, Richard W. Thompson, Jacob Thompson, Tillinghast, Toland, Tomlinson, Triplett, Trumbull, Turney, Underwood, Van Rensselaer, Wallace, Ward, Warren, Washington, Wel ler, Joseph L. White, Christopher II. Williams, Joseph L. Wil. liains, Wise, Wood, Augustus Young, and John Young--109.

NAYS Messrs. Allen, Sherlock J. Andrews, Atherton, Ba. ker, Beeson, Black, Bowne, Boyd, Brewster, Briggs, Aaron V. Brown, Charles Brown, Burke, Burnell, Green W. Caldwell, John Campbell, Cary, Casey, Clifford, Clinton, Cowen, Cross, Richard D. Davis, Dawson, Dean, Eastman, John C. Edwards, Ferris, Fessenden, John G. Floyd, Charles A. Floyd, Gates, Gerry, Gilmer, Patrick G. Goode, William O. Goode, Gustine, Hastings, Hays, Hopkins, Houck, Houston, Hubard, Hudson, Hunter, William W. Irwin, Jack, William Cost Johnson, Cave Johnson, Keim, Abraham McClellan, McKay, McKeon, Mar chand, Alfred Marshall, Mathews, Maxwell, Medill. Mitchell, Morris, Newhard, Parmenter, Pickens, Plumer, Read, Reynolds, Riggs, Rogers, Roosevelt, Saunders, Shaw, Snyder, Steenrod, Sumter, Watterson, Westbrook, and Winthrop--73. JOINT COMMITTEES.

Mr. BRIGGS moved a concurrence in the resolution of the Senate to appoint joint committees on enrolled bills, &c., &c.

The motion was agreed to.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS. Mr. FILLMORE moved that the Executive communications on the Speaker's table be read; which was agreed to.

The CLERK accordingly read a variety of communications from the War and Navy Departments, and from the Treasurer of the United States, and the Commissioner of the Public Buildings; and they were appropriately referred, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. FILLMORE inquired if the estimates for

VOLUME 12.... No. 4.

the year had been received from the Treasury Department?

The SPEAKER replied, that they had not yet been placed upon his table.

CONTESTED ELECTION.

The SPEAKER announced that he had received additional testimony in the case of the contested election of the Delegate from Florida, [Mr. LEVY.]

Mr. TURNEY moved that it be laid on the table.

Mr. MORGAN moved that it be referred, together with the testimony previously received, and the report of the committee of the last session, to the Committee of Elections.

The question was taken on the motion to lay on the table, which was negatived-the vote being 52 in the affirmative, and 76 in the negative.

Mr. MORGAN then urged the motion which he had submitted.

Mr. TURNEY objected to that motion. He did not know by what authority this testimony had been taken, nor by which party; but at the extra session time was given both parties to take testimony, under the rules of the House, which prescribed how the testimony should be taken; testimony was accordingly taken, and the whole was referred to a standing committee, by whom a report was made, and the case was disposed of. But new testimony had found its way into the House-by whom or by what authority taken, no human being could tell. It was certain that it was not taken by the authority of the House. Now, he wished to know if, at this late day, the House was again to commit this subject to the Committee of Elections, when the term of the Delegate's service had nearly expired? It appeared to him to be a species of child's play; and if it were to be done, he hoped the gentlemen who voted for it would take upon themselves the trouble which the examination would require. He submitted, as a question of order, whether the report of the last session was now before the House?

The SPEAKER was understood to decide that it was not.

The House then adjourned.

IN SENATE.

WEDNESDAY, December 14, 1842.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. laid before the Sen. ate a communication from the State Department, showing the returns made to that department, by collectors of the several collection districts of the United States, of the number of American seamen registered in each district during the year ending September, 1842; which, on motion of Mr. EVANS, was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. CHOATE presented the petition of Benja. min K Churchill, of New Hampshire, who was engaged in the privateer service of the United States during the late war with England, praying for a pension: referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

Mr. SMITH of Indiana presented the petition of George Burk, praying for revolutionary bounty land: referred to the Committee on Revolutionary Claims.

On motion of Mr. BERRIEN, the petition and papers of Duncan L. Clinch were ordered to be taken from the files of the Senate, and referred to the Committee on Claims.

Mr. WRIGHT presented a memorial from Franklin W. Stilwell, relative to qualifying and appointing engineers on board the United States steamships: referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

On motion of Mr. KERR, leave was granted to withdraw from the files of the Senate the petition and papers of R. S. Coxe, assignee of David Beard.

BILLS INTRODUCED.

Mr. EVANS, on leave, introduced a bill for the relief of Robert B. Lewis; which was twice read, and appropriately referred.

Mr. BATES, on leave, introduced a bill for refunding to Massachusetts the balances due her for disbursements during the late war with Great Britain; which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

Mr. CLAYTON, on leave, introduced a bill to repeal the act to amend an act approved 23d August, 1842, further supplementary to the act entitled "An act to establish the judicial system of the United States;" which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. PORTER, on leave, introduced a bill to amend an act entitled "An act to establish the north ern boundary line of the State of Ohio, and to provide for the admission of Michigan into the Union," approved in 1836; which was read twice, and referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. KING, on leave, introduced a bill for the relief of Joseph Bryan, Harrison Young, and Benjamin Young; which was read twice, and, with the papers on the files of the Senate relating to it, referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

Mr. GRAHAM, on leave, introduced a bill for the relief of claimants to indemnity for certain slaves taken by the British Government from on board of the American brigs the Comet and Enco. mium, at Nassau and New Providence; which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

FINE ON GENERAL JACKSON.

Mr. LINN, on leave, introduced a bill to indemnify Major General Andrew Jackson for damages sustained in discharge of his official duty; which was read twice, and

Mr. L said the bill was very short; and, taking example of the Senator from New York, [Mr. WRIGHT,] he would not move to refer it to any committee. It was fully discussed at the last session; and its provisions being simple, were, no doubt, understood on all sides. He would, therefore, move that the bill be postponed till this day week, and made the order for that day. The motion was agreed to.

Mr. L. also, on leave, introduced the following bills, viz:

A bill authorizing the relinquishment of the sixteenth sections gran'ed for the use of schools, and the entry of other lands in lieu thereof; which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on the Public Lands.

A bill to continue in force the "Act for the final adjustment of private land claims in Missouri," approved 9th July, 1832; and the act supplemental thereto, approved 2d March, 1833; which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on Private Land Claims.

Mr. FULTON, on leave, introduced a bill to allow a drawback on foreign merchandise exported in original packages to Chihuahua and Santa Fe, in Mexico; which having been read twice,

Mr. FULTON moved to refer it to the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. WOODBURY expressed a wish that the Committee on Commerce, to which it was proposed to refer this bill, would take into consideration the propriety of enlarging its provisions, so as to include the whole frontier of the United States. He considered that the privilege of drawback on goods exported in original packages was equally, if not more, important to the Northern and Eastern sections of the country, than to that section which this bill was intended to benefit-the West.

Mr. KING, as one of the committee, had no objection to the reference; but he must say that he was adverse to the passage of any general provision allowing drawback, believing that it would lead to most mischievous consequences, and would defraud the Government of a large portion of its

revenue.

Mr. HUNTINGTON said the Committee on Commerce had at the last session examined this bill, and considered it as a case sui generis, and one which ought to pass as a matter of strict justice to those interested in the trade, and as a matter of public policy. Toe committee then reported favorably to the passage of the bill without a gen. eral provision. They thought it ought not to be connected with the subject of drawbacks generally. He believed the interests of the country were very

well protected in the bill as then reported from the committee, and that it ought to pass.

Mr. FULTON remarked that the bill at the last session took the very course which the Senator from New Hampshire suggested; and, on account of its being encumbered with the additional weight of a general provision, was lost. He sincerely hoped that this bill, which was intended to provide for a peculiar case, would not again be converted into a general bill. As the bill stood, it was a subject of deep interest to the West; not only so, but to the whole Union. Justice to those interested in this particular trade demanded its passage, whe'h. er a general system of drawbacks be established or

not.

Mr. WOODBURY said he did not wish to embarrass the action upon this bill; but he hoped that when the committee were considering the subject, they would consider the question of extending the principles of the bill to every section of the Union. He felt bound, at the last session, from a sense of duty, to make the motion to include the whole frontier of the United States in the bill. He would try again to effect that object. It was important not only to the commerce of the country, but to a vast portion of the business passing through the Northern lakes, and on the Northern railroads, during six months in the year, when the navigation was closed. He merely threw out the suggestion to the committee, to consider the propriety of making the bill general, while they were entertaining the subject. As to the objection urged against a general bill, that frauds would grow up under it, he would only say that smuggling can be as effectually guarded against in a general bill as it was possible to do in a partial bill. He would feel compelled, in justice to the whole frontier, to move an amendment in accordance with his views when the bill came before the Senate for action.

The bill was then referred to the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. FULTON, on leave, introduced a bill in relation to a donation of laud to certain persons in the State of Arkansas; and

A bill for the relief of sundry citizens of Arkansas, who lost their improvements in consequence of the treaty between the United States and the Choctaw Indians; which bills were read twice, and referred to the Committee on the Public Lands.

On motion of Mr. LINN, the petition and papers of Dr. Boyd Reily were ordered to be taken from the files of the Senate, and referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

On motion of Mr. BARROW, the petition and papers of Garland & Curry were ordered to be taken from the files of the Senate, and referred to the Committee on Private Land Claims.

Messrs. BATES and FULTON gave notice that they would, on to-morrow, ask leave to introduce certain bills.

On motion of Mr. EVANS, the following resolution, introduced by Mr. BENTON on Monday last, was taken up for consideration:

Resolved, That the President of the United States be request. ed to inform the Senate as follows:

1. The number and estimated value of vessels which will be equired in the African squadron under the late British treaty. 2. The probable annual cost of repairing said vessels. 3. The number of men and officers which the equipment of the squadron will require.

4. The probable annual loss of men from deaths, desertion, and other casualties, on board said squadron.

5. The probable annual expenditure of said squadron, under all the heads of expenditure incident to the service.

6. Whether it is intended to make the squadron consist of more than eighty guns, and the calibre of the guns to be used. 7. The whole number of guns which it is expected to have afloat in the United States navy during the year 1843, and the estimated expense of the naval establishment for the year, including all expenses incident to keeping up the navy.

Mr. BENTON modified the resolution, by inserting the words "and other arms" after the word "guns," in the 7th clause. The resolution, as thus modified, was adopted.

Mr. CLAYTON said he found the Cheir had placed him on the Committee on Printing. His health was such, that it was utterly impossible to perform the duties which would devolve on him in consequence. He therefore asked to be excused.

The question was put, and he was excused; and the Chair was authorized to appoint another mem ber to fill the vacancy.

CORPS OF REPORTERS.

The resolution for the appointment of such a corps came up in order; but was, at the suggestion of Mr. BAYARD, who introduced it, postponed ull Monday next.

CLAIMANTS.

The joint resolution of Mr. GRAHAM came up, and was read, as follows:

Resolved by the Senate, (the House of Representatives concurring,) That the following be added to the joint rules of the two Houses:

Whenever a claim against the United States, of any descrip tion, has been, or shall be, presented to either House, and referred to a committee, and such committee shall have made a report in writing against the allowance of the claim, and the same shall have been concurred in by such House, it shall not be in order to revive the consideration of such claim in that House, at the same or any future session of Congress, either by bill, resolution, petition, or otherwise, except upon a memorial of the claimant, first setting forth, upon affidavit, that he has discovered new evidence in support of his claim since the decision against it, and a statement of the substance of such evi dence; or, second, assigning specific errors in the report of the committee adverse to it, and a certificate of a member of that House that he believes that the former decision was erroneous, as charged in said memorial: Provided, That an order dis charging a cominittee from the further consideration of a claim, shall in nowise require compliance with the rule.

Mr. GRAHAM remarked that this resolution was fully discussed and passed the Senate at the last session, but was not acted on in the other House; and unless some Senator wished a postponement, he hoped it would be passed at once.

Mr. WOODBRIDGE said he could not vote for the resolution. He deemed the rules already passed sufficient to guard the Senate against improper applications from claimants. The effect of the rule wou'd be to narrow down and infringe the right of petition of his constituents. He could not see that any good would grow out of it; and was, therefore, opposed to it.

Mr. KING said it appeared to him that his friend from Michigan was mistaken in his views of the proposed rule, when he asserted that it would operate as an infringement of the right of petition. He would find, on examining the proposition, that that right was scrupulously guarded. The great object of the resolution was to prevent a constant return of subjects acted upon year after year, and reported against by the committees, and rejected by the two Houses-matters which were frequently brought up from musty records, and presented lo the Senate, with no new grounds by the claimants to recommend them to its consideration. This practice caused a great deal of labor, and was at tended with considerable expense to the nation. This rule was to prevent the practice, and enable Congress to devote to the important business of the nation the time thus improperly taken up in rein vestigating, thrice over and over again, claims without merit or shadow of justice. The rule would be an admirable one, and would save a great deal of unnecessary labor, and a great deal of money for the Government. He knew that, year after year, these rejected claims were hunted up by interested agents, and brought forward without any new evidence or new grounds to recommend them to favorable consideration; and, when presented, they were referred to the committees, reinvestiga. ted, at immense labor, reported against, and reject. ed: and still there was no end to action upon them. The claims of citizens should be fully and fairly examined, and decided upon; but, when that was done, Congress should at least be saved the trouble of going over them again and again.

Mr. LINN inquired whether the resolution re quired that a report in writing should be made by

the committees.

Mr. GRAHAM replied in the affirmative.

Mr. LINN thought that, if the resolution was referred to a committee, and a report was made and published, giving information to the country of the rule, and the reasons for its adoption, it would prevent much abuse of members of Con. gress. If otherwise, great complaint in regard to members of Congress neglecting the business con fided to them would be made; and they would have to write many letters defending themselves against the charge. There had been some discussion upon the subject last year; and he believed there was a resolution adopted, of the nature of this proposed rule, requiring a written report to be made in all cases of private claims, and excluding fur

ther action on claims thus unfavorably reported upon. After the passage of such rule, he had been greatly blamed for not pressing claims reported against, without the applicant knowing of the existence of the rule of the Senate. His honorable friend from Alabama certainly stated the case very strongly, and, in the main, correctly. They had been grossly imposed upon. He thought it would be better to refer the matter to some committee; and he would therefore move that it be referred to the Committee on Claims.

Mr. GRAHAM had no objection to the reference; but supposed the notoriety of the course pursued by Congress, in relation to reiterated claims, would be given as well by the publication of the resolution, as by the publication of the report of the committee. He therefore saw no necessity for the reference desired by the Senator from Missouri. He had been induced to bring forward the subject at the last session, in consequence of the experience he had had, as a member of the committee, with regard to the pertinacity with which claims are reiterated after repeated rejections, and the expenditure of much labor in previous investigations. The committee have had to consider claims repeatedly rejected since 1815-'16, and even since 1808. There is no end to the lalabor of investigation, if this system is to go on.

Mr. WRIGHT said, in relation to the considerations which had been suggested for the passage of the resolution, it appeared to him that there was another, which rendered it a high and imperious duty upon Congress to adopt such a resolution. With a single word, he would refer to it. They had, during the last three or four years, heard a good deal of abuse about the delays, on the part of Congress, in acting upon private claims. They had heard it asserted that there were a thousand honest and suffering claimants before Congress whose claims were not acted on. He (Mr. W.) bad no doubt that, if both Houses were to adopt such a rule, and abide by it, at least nine hundred out of the one thousand claims would disappear at once. There were claims which had been before Congress for twenty years; and, having no merit, they could not be disposed of. To rid themselves, then, of these-he would not say slanders-but these errors in the public judgment, and to show that they did not deserve these reproachful charges of neglecting private claims, it would, he thought, be proper- to adopt some honest and fair rule by which, when a bad claim had been once fairly rejected, it should not again be placed upon the calendar, and continued there from day to day, as constructive evidence of improper neglect and delay on the part of Congress.

Mr. WOODBRIDGE made some further remarks against the resolution; and

The question was put on the motion of reference, and disagreed to.

The question was then put on the adoption of the resolution, and carried in the affirmative.

REPEAL OF THE BANKRUPT LAW. The orders of the day brought up Mr. BENTON'S bill for the repeal of the bankrupt act.

The CHAIR announced that it was on its sec ond reading, and would be considered as in committee of the whole; the question pending being on the amendment submitted by the Senator from North Carolina, [Mr. GRAHAM]

Mr. BERRIEN observed that, if the bill was still subject to such a motion, he would move to refer it to the Committee on the Judiciary.

The CHAIR stated that the motion would be 10 order.

Mr. BERRIEN observed that he believed it was considered expedient, in obedience to public opinjon, to bring forward the repeal of the law at the commencement of this session of Congress.

The law, as it now exists, applies to cases both of voluntary and involuntary bankruptcy. It was proposed to repeal this law, on the ground that public opinion was against it; but, in his (Mr. B.'s) opinion, the public sentiment was directed rather against that portion of the law which relates to voluntary bankruptcy, than against the law itself. With a view, then, to ascertain, by examination, whether

such a bill may not be presented to the consideration of the Senate as would steer clear of the objec tions which apply to the existing law, it seemed desirable that it should be referred to a committee for inquiry. And he was strengthened in this conviction by the fact, that among the numerous petitions which had been presented to Congress at a former session, upon the subject of the bankrupt law, by far the greater portion sought, not its repeal, but a modification of it, by excluding the provisions which relate to voluntary bankruptcy, and by modifying the terms upon which certificates of bankruptcy should be granted. Τι seemed to him that public opinion, so far as it had been ascertained by the representations made to Congress, was not at all adverse to the existence of a system of mercantile bankruptcy; and with a view of ascertaining whether a bill in such a form might not be substituted for the present law, he thought it was desirable that it should be referred. But it was particularly desirable in another and a general view; inasmuch as it would protect the legislation of the United States Congress from the imputation of instability, and insure that respect which ought to be entertained towards all legislation. Besides, it seemed to him improper to proceed in the consideration of the matter with such rapidity, precluding the possibility of giving it that due deliberation which it required. They should not hurry their investigation upon this subject without making those preliminary inquiries which they were in the habit of making in regard to every ordinary subject. These were the considerations which induced him to propose that the bill be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. BENTON objected, in the most strenuous terms, to the reference proposed by the Senator from Georgia. To refer the bill to that committee, would be tantamount to its total rejection. He would tell the Senate plainly, that, if the reference was made, he would consider the proposition to repeal the bankrupt act at once rejected. What would it be, but inviting a committee hostile to the purpose of the bill to go into the question of a uni. versal bankrupt system, or exercise its ingenuity to build up a system like that of the British bankrupt system? and that is not a work that can be performed this session, if it ever can be performed successfully. The committee was under the delusion of the false doctrine which induced the original measure: that deiusion was, that insolvency and bankruptcy are one and the same thing. This fallacy has ever been maintained by the Judiciary in the application of the laws, which cannot be administered without gross error. A question cannot arise between two neighbors about a dozen of eggs, without being liable to be taken from the custody of the laws of the States and brought up to the Federal courts. And now, when this doctrine that insol. vency and bankruptcy are the same, if a continuance of the law is to be contrived, it must be done in conformity with such a fallacy. The law bas proved to be nothing but a great insolvent law, for the abolition of debts, for the benefit of debtors; and would it be main ained that a permanent system ought to be built up on such a foundation as that? No, he could tell the Senate they could not go into any such work. He should resist the motion for these reasons. He resisted it, also, because it was contrary to all parliamentary usage to send a bill to a committee hostile to its princi ples. To send it to such a committee is to send it where it is foredoomed. There was no occasion for such a course; the law has met the universal condemnation of the country. The present bill was a bill for its repeal, with provisions for bringing the remaining cases within constitutional limits. With this view he had taken the 36th section of the old bankrupt act of 1800, which required the consent of two-thirds of the creditors to the extinction of the bankrupt's debts. The whole of the creditors are treated as a partnership for the purpose of saving their debts-all having an interest, but giving a large majority a decisive voice in the adjustment. The old bankrupt act was in reality a bankrupt system, and respected the insolvent laws of the States. But the present law undertakes to expunge the insolvent laws of the States. The old law was confined to traders;

but this extends to every one who wants to get rid of his debts. The old law of 1800 not only respected the insolvent laws of the States, but the lien laws of the States; this presumes to abrogate both. In the provisions of this repeal bill, the necessary clauses of the old law are to be incorporated, in relation to the remaining cases of bankruptcy. This must be done to bring them within the pale of the Constitution. One good effect will be, that, although we may not tell the judges they have been guilty of gross error, we can show them that they have acted unconstitutionally. In England, a bankrupt must have his certificate signed by two-thirds of his creditors, or he is treated as an uncertified bankrupt. And he would tell the Senate that here, now, every person. who has been discharged under the act of last session is an uncertified bankrup'; and his claim to be discharged from liability to his debts should be disregarded in any court acting up to the Constitution. If he (Mr. B) were judge of a court, he would treat as a nullity any certificate under the present law, brought forward as a plea against a claim of debt. He would ask for a certificate signed by two-thirds of the creditors; and if that could not be produced, he would disregard the plea altogether. He would ask, was the Senate now to elongate this iniquitous act? and if it was, for what length of time? He could tell them how long it would admit of remaining cases being continued: just as long as the assets would hold out to pay the officers of the courts and the commissioners.

Some months ago, he read in a Philadelphia paper a notice to creditors to come forward for a dividend of half a cent in the dollar in a case of bankruptcy pending, under the old law of 1800, since the year 1801. And, three or four days ago, he read a notice in a London paper, calling on creditors to come in for a dividend of five-sixths of a penny in the pound, in a case of bankruptcy pending since the year 1793. Here has been a case where the waste of property has been going on for fifty years in England, and another case where it has been going on in this country forty-one or forty-two years. He had been himself twenty-three years in the Senate, and, during that time, various efforts were made to revive the old law of 1800 in some shape or other; but never, till last session, in the shape in which the present law passed. And how could this law be expected to stand, when even the law of 1800 (which was in reality a bankrupt law) could not stand; but was, in the first year of its operation, condemned by the whole country. With regard to the motion of the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. GRAHAM] to amend the bill, he should say that it fairly brought up the question properly at issue. It brought up the question of repeal; and, that being decided, it next presented the question of how the pending cases

are

to

be treated. One proposition is to go on, in relation to these cases, with the bankrupt law as if not repealed; the other is, to make these remaining cases subject to the provisions of a constitutional bankrupt law. On this issue, the question is just as fairly presented, and much better presented, than it can be by any report of a committee. The motion of the Senator from North Carolina does all that can be required. It brings up the main subject in all its bearings. All that is necessary, is to fix a day for its consideration. If, however, the motion of reference was persisted in, he should call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. TALLMADGE did not know that the mere question of reference was such a vital one as to commit those who should vote for it. He supposed, from present indications, that the law would be repealed. But those who intended to vote for the repeal, could assuredly vote for the reference, without being thereby committed against the repeal. The question of reference is, simply, whether the Senate shall proceed in the matter deliberately, and upon full information; or precipitately, and without any guide. It was, he considered, all-important that the bill now under discussion should undergo the examination of the appropriate committee. The Senator from Missouri says the question is fairly and fully presented on the motion of the Senator from North Carolina. But there are many Senators who think the ques

tion should also embrace a modification of the law; and they, too, wish to see that view presented from the proper source. Let the bill, then, go to the Committee on the Judiciary; and if the law is to be repealed, there will be time enough to effect that object. It seemed, indeed, strange to him that there should be any objection to letting the bill pass through the Judiciary Committee; for the Senate must have the same control of it after it is reported back, that it has now. He hoped there would be no objection to considering the opinion of the committee.

Mr. BERRIEN said it was truly stated by the Senator from Missouri, that the bill he proposes, and the amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina, present two questions-the question of repeal, and the question as to the terms of that repeal. But, independently of these, there was a third question. A portion of the Senate desired to have it inquired of, by a committee, whether, instead of an absolute repeal of the law, it might not be so modified as to make it conform to the interests of the country, and to the prevailing public opinion. With a view to ascertain whether such & modification could be proposed, it was asked that the bill might be referred to the Judiciary CommitIce. And surely, in relation to a matter of this important nature-in relation to the exercise of a pow. er which could alone be exercised by the General Government-notwithstanding gentlemen might entertain the opinion that the bill, even when so modified, would not be acceptable to them, yet it was but one of the ordinary courtesies of legislation to allow gentlemen who may take a different view, an opportunity of presenting their views for the consideration of that body. He (Mr. BERRIEN) denied, therefore, that the reference of the bill to the committee would at all influence the vital question of repeal or no repeal. The only effect of the reference would be, to give those who were in favor of a modification of the law an opportunity of presenting their views in a deliberate form. He would not, however, object to the yeas and nays being taken.

Mr. BENTON said if there was any Senator present who would say that the vote he should give for reference would not commit him, he (Mr. B.) was willing to withdraw the call for the yeas and

nays.

Mr. CRITTENDEN said he was disposed to gratify the gentleman by the reference, although be should vote for the repeal of the law.

Mr. MERRICK said he should vote for the reference, without feeling himself committed at all, with respect to the vote he should give on the ques. tion of repeal. He intended to vote for the repeal in some form.

Mr. BENTON said he would, then, withdraw his call for the yeas and nays.

The question was then taken on referring the bill to the Commitee on the Judiciary, and decided in the affirmative-ayes 17, noes 12; and it was accordingly so referred.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. laid before the Senate a communication from the War Departmen', transmitting the annual report of the Commissioner of Pensions, containing a list of applicants for pensions, or increase of pension, which applications were rejected during the last year: ordered to lie on the table, and be printed.

Also, a message from the President, transmitting a letter from the Secretary of the Navy, covering despatches from the Mediterranean, giving correct information of the state of the relations of the United States with Morocco; which, on motion of Mr. BAYARD, was ordered to lie on the table, and be printed.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. also stated that there were communications from the President of the United States of an executive character, on his desk. Thereupon,

On motion of Mr. KING, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of executive business, and spent the remainder of the day's session therein.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, December 14, 1842.

Mr. McKEON presented the petition of the Chamber of Commerce of the city of New York

for a warehousing system; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce.

JOINT COMMITTEES.

Messrs. JAMES IRVIN, EDMUND BURKE, and P. G. GOODE, were this morning announced as the members, on the part of the House, of the Joint Committee on Enrolled Bills, &c.

CIVIL & DIPLOMATIC APPROPRIATIONS.

Mr. FILLMORE, from the Committee of Ways and Means, reported a bill making appropriations for the civil and diplomatic expenses of the Government for the half of the calendar year ending the 30th day of June, 1843.

The bill was read a first and second time.

Mr. FILLMORE moved that it be committed to the Committee of the Whole, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. CUSHING begged to ask the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means if the bill contained an appropriation for the pay of members of Congress, and the usual contingencies; so that no bill was to be introduced for that purpose, in anticipation of the ordinary civil and diplomatic appropriations.

Mr. FILLMORE replied, that this bill contained a provision for the pay of members of Congress, and the contingencies; and that no bill for that purpose would, therefore, be introduced in anticipation of the civil and diplomatic appropriations. Mr. CUSHING observed that he was glad the committee had adopted that course.

The bill was then committed, and ordered to be printed.

ELECTION OF CHAPLAIN.

Mr. BRIGGS moved that the House proceed to the election of its Chaplain; which was agreed to. Mr. BOWNE nominated the Rev. Mr. Tiffany of the Episcopal Church, of the State of New York.

Mr. HENRY nominated the Rev. Mr. Reese of the Methodist Church.

Mr. JAMES COOPER nominated the Rev. Mr. Muller of the Lutheran Church, now resident in the city of Washington.

Mr. PEARCE nominated the Rev. Mr. Sutherland of the Methodist Church.

Mr. MALLORY nominated the Rev. Mr. Clayton of the Methodist Church.

Mr. HUDSON nominated the Rev. Mr. Bull. finch of the Unitarian Church.

Mr. ARNOLD said he had been requested by several of his friends to nominate the Rev. Mr. Maffitt, their late Chaplain, whom he and his friends would rather hear than any other man [laughter] that they could get; and therefore they wanted to vote for him.

Mr. BARTON nominated the Rev. John Collins of the Methodist Church.

The nominations having all been made, Messrs. BOWNE, HENRY, and JAMES COOPER, were ap. pointed tellers to receive the votes.

The vote having been taken,

Of which

Mr. Tiffany received

Mr. Reese

Mr. Muller
Mr. Maffitt

Mr. Bulfinch

Mr. Tiffany having received a majority of all the votes given, he was declared duly elected to the chaplaincy of the House of Representatives for the present session.

A message was received from the President of the United States, by Mr. JOHN TYLER, jr., bis secretary, as follows:

To the House of Representatives:

Two bills were presented to me, at the last session of Congress, which originated in the House of Representatives, neither of which was signed by me; and, both having been pre sented within ten days of the close of the session, neither has become a law.

The first of these was a bill entitled "An act to repeal the proviso of the sixth section of the act entitled 'An act to appre priate the proceeds of the sales of the public lands, and to grant pre-emption rights,' approved September fourth, one thousand eight hundred and forty-one."

This bill was presented to me on Tuesday, the 30th August, at twenty-four minutes after four o'clock in the afternoon. For my opinions relative to the provisions contained in this bill, it is only necessary that I should refer to previous communications made by me to the House of Representatives.

The other bill was entitled "An act regulating the taking of testimony in cases of contested electione, and for other pur poses."

This bill was presented to me at a quarter past one o'clock, on Wednesday, the thirty-first day of August. The two Houses, by concurient vote, had already agreed to terminate the aca sion by adjournment at two o'clock on that day-that is to say, within three-quarters of an hour from the time the bill was placed in my hands. It was a bill containing twenty-seven sections, and, I need not say, of an important nature.

On its presentation to me, its reading was immediately commenced; but was interrupted by so many communications from the Senate, and so many other causes operating at the last hour of the session, that it was impossible to read the bill understandingly, and with proper deliberation, before the hour fixed for the adjournment of the two Houses; and this, I presume, is a sufficient reason for neither signing the bill, nor returning it with my objections.

The 17th joint rule of the two Houses of Congress declares that "no bill or resolution that shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate shall be presented to the Prestdent of the United States, for his approbation, on the last day of the session."

This rule was evidently designed to give to the President a reasonable opportunity of perusing important acts of Congress, and giving them some degree of consideration, before signing or returning the same.

It is true, that the two Houses have been in the habit of euspending this rule, towards the close of the session, in relation to particular bills; and it appears by the printed journal, that, by concurrent votes of the two Houses, passed on the last day of the session, the rule was agreed to be suspended, so far as the same should relate to all such bills as should have been passed by the two Houses at one o'clock on that day. It is exceed ingly to be regretted that a necessity should ever exist for such suspension, in the case of bills of great importance, and therefore demanding careful consideration.

As the bill has failed, under the provisions of the Constitution, to become a law, I abstain from expressing any opinions upon its several provisions, keeping myself wholly uncommitted as to my ultimate action on any similar measure, should the House think proper to originate it de novo, except so far as my opinion of the unqualified power of each House to decide for itself upon the election, returns, and qualifications of its own members, has been expressed by me, in a paper lodged in the Department of State, at the time of signing an act entitled "An act for the apportionment of Representatives among the several States, according to the sixth census," approved June the 22d, 1842," a copy of which is in possession of the House. JOHN TYLER. WASHINGTON, Dec. 14, 1842.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the Department of State, contain. ing an abstract of the returns of the collectors of the customs, made in pursuance of the provisions of the act for the protection of American seamen: referred to the Committee on Commerce, and or dered to be printed.

Also, a communication from the War Depart ment, transmitting the annual report of the Commissioner of Pensions, of the amount of pensions paid for the past year.

Also, a communication from the Navy Department, enclosing a communication from Commodore Morgan, relative to the adjustment of our differences with Morocco: referred to the Commit. tee on Foreign Affairs, and ordered to be printed. TEMPERANCE.

Mr. BRIGGS called up the resolution submitted by him some days since, to amend the 19th joint rule, by striking out the word "spirituous," and inserting the word "intoxicating."

[The effect of this amendment would be to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors in the Capitol.]

Mr. WELLER asked if the resolution was in order.