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 apon 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.) had 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 hotest 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 in order.

Mr. BERRIEN observed that he believed it was considered expedient, in obedience to public opinion, 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 bankrup.cy. 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 vol. untary 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 objections which apply to the existing law, it seemed desirable that it should be referred to a com mittee 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. It 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 legisla tion. 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 burry 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 per formed 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 delusion 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 insolvency 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 has 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 principles. 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 bankrupt; 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 All that is up the main subject in all its bearings. 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

tee.

And surely, in relation to a matter of this important nature-in relation to the exercise of a power 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 Jaw 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 he 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 Committee 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 Department, 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 appointed tellers to receive the votes.

The vote having been taken,

Mr. BOWNE announced that the number of votes taken was

Necessary to a choice

Of which

Mr. Tiffany received
Mr. Muller
Mr. Reese
Mr. Maffitt
Mr. Clayton
Mr. Bullfinch
Mr. Collins
Mr. Sutherland -

194

198

100

1

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., his secretary, as follows:

To the House of Representatives:

Two bills were presented to me, at the last session of Con. gress, which originated in the House of Representatives, nei. ther 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 appropriate 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 commu. nications made by me to the House of Representatives.

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

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 ses 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 com. menced; but was interrupted by so many communicatious 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 Presi dent 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 suspending 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 exceedingly 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 replied in the negative.

Mr. WELLER then objected to its consideration; upon which

Mr. BRIGGS moved a suspension of the rules; and the yeas and nays having been called for by Mr. CALHOUN, they were ordered, and resulted -yeas 125, nays 52— 2-as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Adams, L. W. Andrews, S. J. Andrews, Aycrigg, Baker, Barnard, Barton, Beeson, Bidlack, Birdseye, Blair, Boardman, Borden, Bowne, Briggs, Bronson, Aaron V. Brown, Milton Brown, Jeremiah Brown, Burnell, Wm. Butler, Calhoun, Caruthers, Cary, Casey, Chapman, Chittenden, John C. Clark, Clifford, Mark A. Cooper, Cranston, Cravens, Cushing, Richard D. Davis, Deberry, Doig, John Edwards, Fessenden, Fillmore, John G. Floyd, Fornance, Gamble, Gates, Gerry, Gid. dings, Gilmer, Patrick G. Goode, Granger, Hall, Ha'sted, Henry, Houck, Houston, Howard, Hudson, Hunt, Joseph R. Ingersoll, James Irvin, Wm. W. Irwin, James, Wm. Cost Johnson, Keim, John P. Kennedy, Linn, Littlefield, Abraham McClellan, Robert McClellan, McKay, McKennan, Marchand, Alfred Marshall, Samson Mason, Mathiot, Mathews, Mattocks, Maynard, Meriwether, Mitchell, Moore, Morgan, Morris, Newhard, Osborne, Payne, Pendleton, Plumer, Ramsey, Benjamin, Randall, Read, Reding, Rencher, Reynolds, Rhett, Ridgway, Riggs, Rodney, Roosevelt, William Russell, James M. Russell, Saltonstall, Sanford, Shaw, Shepperd, Slade, Truman Smith, Stokely, Stratton, Alexander H. H. Stuart, Summers, Jacob Thompson, Tillinghast, Toland, Triple t, Trumbull, Underwood, Van Rensselaer, Warren, Washington, Westbrook, Christopher H. Williams, Winthrop, Wise, Wood, Yorke, Augustus Young, and John Young-125.

NAYS-Messrs. Arnold, Arrington, Atherton, Black, Burke, William O. Butler, Patrick C. Caldwell, Thomas J. Campbell, Clinton, Coles, James Cooper, Cowen, Cross, Garrett Davis, Dawson, Egbert, Everett, Ferris, Charles A. Floyd, A. Law. rence Foster, Goggin, Wm. O. Goode, Gordon, Hays, Holmes, Hunter, Charles J. Ingersoll, Jack, Andrew Kennedy, McKeon, Mallory, Miller, Morrow, Owsley, Patridge, Pearce, Rayner, Rogers, William Smith, Snyder, Stanly, Steenrod, Taliaferro, Turney, Van Buren, Ward, Watterson, Weller, Jos. L. White, and Joseph L. Williams-52.

So the rules were suspended; and, the resolution being before the House,

Mr. AYCRIGG offered the following as amendment:

an

Resolved, That the restaurateurs be forthwith removed from the Capitol.

Mr. C. J. INGERSOLL suggested that this would remove the men, and not the places.

The amendment was adopted without opposition; and the resolution of Mr. BRIGGS, as thus amended, passed by acclamation.

WAREHOUSING SYSTEM.

Mr. McKEON asked leave to have referred to the Committee on Commerce a bill in relation to the warehousing system.

Mr. MCKENNAN objected.

Mr. McKEON moved a suspension of the rules; but the House refused to suspend

PETITIONS.

Mr. FILLMORE inquired what was the decision of the Speaker in regard to the offering of petitions.

The SPEAKER replied that the rule was without limit. It was in the power of members to introduce petitions at any time.

Mr. FILLMORE said he was perfectly content with the decision of the Chair.

Mr. BRONSON asked leave to offer a resolution, calling upon the Solicitor of the Treasury for information as to the amount of fees paid the sev. eral clerks of the Federal courts in cases of admiralty and bankruptcy.

Mr. BOWNE objected to the reception of the resolution; and it was not considered.

THE TARIFF.

Mr. READ asked leave to offer the following resolutions; which were read for information:

Whereas the act of Congress entitled "An act to provide revenue from imports, and to change and modify existing laws imposing duties on Imports, and for other purposes," passed 30th August, 1842, having been passed in the hurry and confusion of the last day of a session, and therefore greatly defective, not only in its details, but in some of its principles, imposing prohibitory duties on a great variety of articles, thereby so far defeating itself, both in regard to revenue and protection-the latter, by administering a powerful stimulant to the smuggling trade; therefore,

Resolved, That the Committee of Ways and Means be instructed to report a bill, supplementary to the said act of the 30th August last, based upon the following principles, viz: 1. To produce an adequate revenue for the economical administration of the Government, and no more—say from twenty to twenty-three millions.

2. Articles classed as "necessaries of life," and entering into general consumption, of a description not grown or produced in the United States, to be admitted free of duty.

3. Articles imported, coming in competition with those grown or produced in the United States, to be taxed so as to give ample protection to our farmers, planters, manufacturers, and mechanics.

4. The measure of such protection to be, in all cases, so much duty as will make the cost of the foreign article in our markets equal to the cost of production in the United States, and no

more.

If it should be found necessary to impose higher duties for revenue than are required by the said measure of protection, in such case luxuries to pay a higher duty than necessaries. 6. No drawback to be allowed on foreign sugars refined in the United States, nor on spirits distilled from foreign mo. lasses.

7. No drawback to be allowed in any case, unless the goods shall be specially intended for exportation, and actually exported within ninety days from the time of importation.

8. The principle of cash duties to be preserved, except in the case of goods imported and entered for exportation, which may be warehoused.

9. All duties to be levied on the true value of the goods in the principal ports of the United States; such value to be ascertain. ed by a board of commissioners, (to be appointed for that pur pose,) in all cases where the importer shall appeal from the val. uation or appraisement of the collector of the port. TRADE WITH AUSTRIA AND PRUSSIA.

Mr. TRIPLETT offered a resolution, which was adopted, after being modified according to the suggestions of Messrs. WISE, MCKEON, and ADAMS, in the following form:

Resolved, That the President of the United States be re. quested to communicate to this House, as soon as conveniently may be, if not incompatible with the public interest, the com mnnications to and from our ministers at Berlin and Vienna, subsequent to the last communication sent to this House on the subject of the trade and commerce between those respective countries and the United States.

NAVAL DEPOT AT MEMPHIS.

Mr. C. H. WILLIAMS offered the following resolution; which was adopted, (after an amendment by Mr. WISE, Substituting the Committee on Naval Affairs for the Committee on Commerce.)

Resolved, That the Committee on Naval Affairs be instructed to inquire into the expediency of establishing a naval depot and dock-yard, at Memphis, in the State of Tennessee.

On motion of Mr. J. P. KENNEDY, the select committee of last session on the subject of international copy-right, (which failed to report for want of time,) was ordered to be revived. EXTRA PAY.

Mr. C. J. INGERSOLL asked leave to offer a resolution granting to the officers, clerks, folders, pages, &c. of the House, the same extra pay which was allowed to the same in the Senate at the last session of Congress.

Mr. BLACK objected, and the resolution was not received.

Messrs. J. C. CLARK and GIDDINGS severally attempted to introduce resolutions of inquiry; but were defeated by the intervention of objections.

CONTESTED ELECTION.

Mr. MORGAN called for the question on the motion pending at the adjournment yesterday, to refer certain additional testimony, in the case of the contested election of the Delegate from Florida, [Mr. LEVY,] to the Committee on Elections; and, the question being stated by the Speaker,

Mr. BARTON presented still further testimony on behalf of the sitting member; and he moved that it be printed.

The SPEAKER announced the question to be on the motion to refer.

Mr. MORGAN entered into a statement of facts in connexion with the taking of this testimony, and urged the propriety of referring the whole subject back to the Committee on Elections.

Mr. HOPKINS said he did not understand the character of the testimony now presented to the House to be such as to render it necessary to refer the whole subject back. It was important that the question should be settled. The sitting member had invoked a decision; but, if the case were referred back to the Committee on Elections, with this additional correspondence, for re-examination, they might not expect a report until the close of the present short session, when it would be impossible to have a full attendance of the House for a decision of a question like that. There could be no objection to the printing of this additional testimony; and then they would have it before the House, which would be as competent to determine the case as any committee could be.

Mr. BARTON, Mr. HALSTED, Mr. TURNEY, and Mr. MORGAN, entered into statements relative to the admissibility of certain testimony, and discussed the necessity of the proposed refer

ence.

Mr. LEVY begged to be allowed to say a word or two in explanation of the circumstances under which he acted, and of the course which he had

deemed it his duty to take. Such action as the House might determine to take on this subject, would be in accordance with its own views of justice and propriety; and he had no suggestion to make in regard it, and no desire to influence its action. He had, from the first, deemed it to be his duty, because most consistent with propriety, to refrain from expressing any opinion, either in regard to the proceedings of the committee, or of the House. He was himself satisfied that he had the right to represent the people of Florida on this floor, and that he was a citizen of the United States. The people of Florida themselves were perfectly satisfied as to these particulars, He would, however, make a brief explanation of facts, in order to give the House a more perfect understanding of the subject. After the election, under which he was returned as the delegate from the Territory of Florida, a few individuals, impelled by personal motives, who had opposed his election, and who had the benefit of their opposition at the polls, made a remonstrance to the House, in which they denied his right to represent the Territory in Congress. There was no contesting candidate appearing here to canvass his right to his seat; but these men, who came as remonstrants, came also as witnesses. They were not only witnesses, but some of them went to the extent of seven depositions each, who were not in Florida at the time the transactions took place about which they undertock to testify. Now he would say to the House, that, having regarded this matter as an inquiry instituted by itself, for its own satisfaction, whether the delegation from Florida had been properly filled by the people of that Territorytaking it as a question between this House and the people of Florida, he had not deemed it consistent with self respect, and with the respect he owed both to the House and the people of Florida, to say anything to influence its action. When the ques. tion came up before the House, on the report of the Committee of Elections, he should then ask to be heard. Whether the House would refer this matter back again to the committee, or proceed with the report of the committee of the last session, were questions in regard to which he had not a word to say. As the chairman of the committee, however, had gone into a statement of facts, which might have some effect on the minds of members of the House, he begged leave to make a plain and simple statement in reply to it. So far as notice was concerned, he contended that ample and sufficient notice, and of the best kind, was given of the depositions taken by him. That notice was given in the public papers of Florida, from one end of the Territory to the other. He did not choose to recognise one of these remonstrants more than another, in giving notice; and there being some hundred of them, had he given a notice to one, the other ninety-nine might have had cause of complaint.

Mr. HALSTED inquired of the gentleman whether he was not informed last session that the attorneys of the remonstrants would receive the notices.

Mr. LEVY replied that Mr. Peter Schenk Smith informed him that Mr. Richard S. Coxe of this place, or General Hernandez, or himself, would receive notices; but he should like to know what right one of the remonstrants had to appoint attorneys to act for all of them. With respect to the deposition of his father, (Moses C. Levy,) made in the city of New York, he was ready to make an explanation to the House; though it was painful to him to approach this part of the subject. Oa receiving notice that this deposition was to be taken, he went on to New York, and endeavored to obtain an interview with his father, without effect. Having been denied this interview, he could not attend the taking of the testimony, but appointed a friend to act in his place, directing him not to subject his parent to a cross-examination. He afterwards, having seen the deposition, drew up and submitted certain interrogatories, necessary to elicit some important facts. God knew that his only object throughout had been to elicit truth, and to lay before the House all the facts of the case. If there were any little technicalities of which gentlemen who were pressing this matter wished

to avail themselves, he was willing that they should have the benefit of them. All he wanted was, that all the truth should be brought out. The main ground of this case was his right of citizenship; and to establish this, he depended upon the public records of the country. All other testimony he looked upon as of very little importance. That record was in the State Department, transmitted and deposited there in pursuance of law. It had been acquiesced in, from that time to this; and if the House was now prepared to go behind this record, and inquire into the facts upon which it was made, then he would say that there was very little regard to be paid to public faith. After a few more remarks, Mr. L. said, that the only evidence on which the House was now asked to recommit this matter to the Committee of Elections, was a correspondence between Messrs. Peter Schenk Smith, and Moses C. Levy, his principal witness, in which they dispute about what the former heard the latter say to him. On such testimony as this, the House was asked to send this matter back to the Committee of Elections, to go over all their investigations again.

The question was then taken, and the motion of Mr. HALSTED was rejected.

On motion by Mr. CUSHING, the select committee raised on the petition of Washington Irving and others, on the subject of an international copy. right law, was authorized to report by bill or otherwise.

Mr. BARTON offered a resolution for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the expediency of abolishing the military superintendencies at the national armories, and of substituting civil superintendencies in their stead; also to inquire into the abuses alleged to exist in these establishments.

Objected to by several, and the resolution was not received.

The House then adjourned..

IN SENATE.

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1842. Mr. CALHOUN appeared in his seat to-day. Mr. BUCHANAN presented a memorial of the Chamber of Commerce of Philadelphia, pray. ing Congress to adopt the warehouse system as a part of the revenue system. Mr. B. said that, as the Chamber of Commerce represented a large body of the merchants, he would ask that the memorial be printed, and referred to the same committee to which similar memorials had been referred: agreed to.

Mr. BARROW presented a petition from V. Leblanc, praying compensation for services therein mentioned; which was referred to the Committee on Private Land Claims.

On motion by Mr. LINN, it was ordered that the petition and papers of Benjamin Crawford, asking indemnity for losses sustained in consequence of having his boarding settlement broken up by an officer of the United States army, be taken from the files of the Senate, and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

Mr. SMITH of Indiana reported back, from the Committee on Public Lands, without amendment, the 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; and

The bill in relation to a donation of land to certain persons in the State of Arkansas.

Also, reported back, with amendments, which were read, the bill authorizing the relinquishment of the sixteenth sections granted for the use of schools, and the entry of other lands in lieu thereof.

On motion by Mr. EVANS, it was ordered that the petition of Thomas Fille brown be taken from the files of the Senate, and referred to the Com. mittee on Claims.

On motion of Mr. CONRAD, it was ordered that the memorial and papers of René Vienne be withdrawn from the files of the Senate, and referred to the Committee on Claims.

Mr. WRIGHT presented a memorial from a large number of citizens of Yates county, New York, praying Congress for the instant repeal of

the bankrupt law; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. BATES, on leave, introduced a bill for the relief of the Steamboat Company of Nantucket; which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads.

Mr. RIVES presented a memorial from Mrs. Frances M. Lewis and Mary Neal, widows of late officers in the navy of the United States, who were lost on board of the United States sloop of war "Epervier," praying a restoration of the pension which they heretofore received under the navy pension law, and which has been withheld from them in consequence of the repeal of such law: referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

Mr. CONRAD submitted the following resolution; which lies one day under the rule, viz:

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be requested to communicate to the Senate whether any, and what, amount of money had been refunded to claimants in virtue of the act entitled "An act in relation to lands held in the Greensburg, late St. Helena district, in the State of Louisiana, and authoriz ing the resurvey of certain lands in said district," approved August 29, 1842; whether, in any cases, the claimants have received reimbursement of the price paid by them for lands in complying, or offering to comply, with the provisions of said act, and such reimbursement has been refused, and the reasons for such refusal; and whether any, and what, proceedings have taken place under said act.

THE QUINTUPLE TREATY.

Mr. BENTON submitted the following resolution; which lies one day, under the rule, viz:

Resolved, That the President be requested to inform the Senate whether the quintuple treaty, for the suppression of the slave trade, has been communicated to the Government of the United States in any form whatever? And if so, by whom? for what purpose? and what answer may have been returned to such communication? Also, to communicate to the Senate all the information which may have been received by the Govern. ment of the United States, going to show that the "course which this Government might take in relation to said treaty has excited no small degree of attention and discussion in Eu rope." Also, to inform the Senate how far the "warm animadversions," and the "great political excitement," which this treaty has caused in Europe, have any application or reference to these United States. Also, to inform the Senate what danger there was of having the "laws and the obligations" of the United States, in relation to the suppression of the slave-trade, "exe. cuted by others," if we did not "remove their pretext and motive for violating our flag, and executing our laws," by enter. ing into the stipulations for the African squadron, and the re monstrating embassies, which are contained in the eighth and ninth articles of the late British treaty.

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

Mr. McROBERTS gave notice that he would ask leave, on to morrow, to introduce a bill to amend the several laws granting pre-emption rights to settlers on the public lands.

Mr. McR. remarked that there were some sug. gestions in the President's message in regard to the propriety of disposing of the mineral lands belonging to the United States. He moved that so much of the message as related to that subject be refer. red to the Committee on the Public Lands: agreed to.

On motion of Mr. LINN, it was

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to return to the General Land Office all the original papers on file in his office, which accompanied the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, of the 10th of January, 1838, and contained in Senate Document 97, of the 2d session of the 25th Congress.

Mr. FULTON, on leave, introduced a bill perfecting titles to land south of the Arkansas river, held under the treaty of New Madrid, and preemption rights under the act of 1814; which was twice read, and referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

Mr. BAYARD moved that, when the Senate adjourn, it adjourn to meet on Monday next: agreed

to.

On motion of Mr. BAYARD, the Senate then proceeded to the consideration of executive l usiness; and, after some time spent thereon, Adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THURSDAY, December 15, 1842.

Mr. PARMENTER presented the petition of Mary Page for a revolutionary pension; of Mary J. Babbit for a naval pension; of John C. Clark for increase of pay of captains's clerks in the navy; all of which were referred to the appropriate com. mittees.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS.

The following Executive communications were laid on the table of the House of Representatives on Monday last, to which we were only able then to allude in general terms:

A letter from the Secretary of War, in obedience to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 30th of August last, transmitting a statement of the private establishments at which fire-arms are manufactured for the Government, where situated, the number annually fabricated, at what prices, &c; which letter and statements were referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

A letter from the Secretary of War, in answer to the resolution of the House of the 25th May last, transmitting a statement of the number of the officers of the army, with the rates of pay and allowance, &c.: laid on the table.

A letter from the Secretary of War, in answer to a resolution of the House of the 11th August, transmitting a statement of the number of resignations in the army since the 1st of January, 1834, with the causes of the same, so far as known; and how many of the said officers who resigned were educated at West Point, with any further information upon the same subject: laid on the table.

A letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting a report of the Third Auditor of the Treasury, in answer in part to the resolution of the House of the 28th of February last, requiring a report of all cases of extra compensation heretofore allowed to officers of the army for services similar to those rendered by General Scott, for which he is said to have received extra allowance; together with the names of such officers, the time when received, the amount paid to each, &c., and stating his inability to determine when the answer will be completed: laid on the table.

A letter from the Secretary of the Navy, transmitting, in obedience to the joint resolution of Congress of the 29th of May, 1830, a report from the Commissioner of Pensions of the names of persons who have applied for relief under the navy pension laws, and whose claims have been rejected, and the reasons for such rejection: laid on the table.

A letter from the Secretary of the Navy, transmitting, agreeably to the provisions of the act of Congress of the 3d of March, 1809, an abstract of the contingent expenses of the paval establishment from the 1st of October, 1841, to the 30th of September, 1842, inclusive: laid on the table.

A letter from the Treasurer of the United States, transmitting copies of the Treasurer's accounts with the United States for the third and fourth quarters of 1841, and the first and second quarters of 1842, as adjusted by the accounting officers of the department: laid on the table.

A letter from the Clerk of the House of Rep. resentatives, transmitting his report of the expenditure of the contingent fund of the House of Representatives: referred to the Committee of Ac

counts.

A letter from the Commissioner of Public Buildings, transmitting copies of all contracts made in his office from the 1st of December, 1841, to the present time, with the names of the applicants for said contracts, and the amount of their respective bids: referred to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds.

FEES IN BANKRUPTCY.

Mr. BRONSON offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he hereby is, required to obtain, with as little delay as practicable, a statement of fees taxed by the several clerks of the circuit and district courts of the United States, in admiralty and bankrupt cases: showing the amount of fees taxed by said several clerks, with the items constituting said amount in a case in admiralty; and, also, in a case in bankruptcy, either to the bankrupt, or a creditor, when there is no adverse appearance; and showing the whole amount of fees that have been actually paid to each clerk on petitions, and other proceedings under the bankrupt act, to this date; and, also, the amount received by said clerks for filing papers, &c.; and for blank forms and copies, in cases of bankruptcy under said act, and up to this date.

Mr. BOWNE said he would not object to this resolution, if it was not to impede the speedy action of the House on the bill to repeal the bankrupt law; but he wished to know if it was to have such an effect.

Mr. BRONSON replied in the negative.

Mr. CAVE JOHNSON inquired if it was not requisite that this resolution should lie over for one day.

The SPEAKER was understood to reply that it must lie over, if objected to.

Mr. CAVE JOHNSON then objected, and the resolution was laid over.

CIVIL AND DIPLOMATIC APPROPRIATIONS.

Mr. FILLMORE said it was of considerable importance that the civil and diplomatic appropriation bill, which he reported yesterday from the Committee of Ways and Means, should be acted upon immediately; and therefore he moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, for the purpose of taking up that bill.

The motion was agreed to, and Mr. BRIGGS was called to the chair.

The CHAIRMAN directed the Clerk to read the bill No. 615, being "A bill making appropriations for the civil and diplomatic expenses of the Government for the half calendar year ending the 30th day of June, 1843.”

The Clerk accordingly read the bill through all its sections. It was then taken up by sections, and the committee proceeded, without objection, through all the sections to the following item in the Treasury Department:

"For extra clerk hire, $750."

Mr. GILMER moved to strike out this item. At the last session of Congress, he said, there were several investigations instituted into the expenditures of the various departments at the seat of Government; and he knew not what effect those investigations produced on the minds of other gentlemen, but he would say, for himself, that they left on his mind no doubt that there were too many clerks too many regular clerks employed in those various departments. He would not say there were toe many in all the offices of the General Government; but, speaking in the aggregate, he was satisfied there were too many employed in the various departments, and that the public service demanded that there should be a reduction rather than an increase in that quarter. He was therefore surprised to see a permanent item for extra clerk-hire introduced into this bill by the Committee of Ways and Means. They had hitherto been told, when efforts were made to reduce the expenditures of the departments, that, in consequence of the calls for information by Congress, the regular clerks were not adequate to keep pace with the public business. Now, if there were any necessity for the employment of extra clerks, he wished to know it. He would not consume the time of the committee with arguments, which must necessarily be but a repetition of the arguments adduced at the last session, not only in the shape of speeches, but also of reports from investigating committees; but he would ask whether the Congress of the United States intended to authorize, as a permanent system, the employ. ment of 600 or 700 permanent clerks in the various departments, and then make an annual ap. propriation for extra clerk-hire? He knew, from his own personal examination, that, in the various offices in the departments, there were more clerks than could now be profitably employed. He knew there were some who were not employed more than one-fourth of their time. There was, then, a superabundance of labor; and (he was understood to say) it had been suggested that the executive departments should be authorized by law to transfer labor from one office, where there should be found to be a superabundance, to offices where there should be found to be a deficiency; and thus the extra clerk-bire might be dispensed with. The extent of the evil, he further observed, was not set forth in this item; for it would be perceived that this bill made only a temporary appropriation-it was but an appropriation for half the calendar year; and therefore another appropriation would be necessary, as it was evident it was contemplated; and therefore, satisfied as he was that they might produce a slight temporary inconvenience by withholding this appropriation, he believed a great counterbalancing good would ensue if the com.

mittee agreed with him, and should strike out this and similar items.

There was another class of appropriations which he had hoped had received their quietus at the last session-be alluded to that class called "miscellaneous." He must be permitted to express the opinion, that, whatever party conflicts there might be in the country, and whatever party might be in power, this would never be an honest Government until it was a cheap one; nor would it ever be satisfactory to the people, until their Representatives caused accounts to be published showing how the revenue was raised, and what were the purposes for which it was appropriated. There were striking defects in the system, which should be corrected by the publication from time to time of statements and accounts of all the receipts and all the expenditures of the Government. There were many items of a million of dollars in the accounts; and he would ask what information did they derive from such an item? None whatever; and therefore they wanted the items, dollar for dollar, specifically stated. A reformation in the Auditors' and Comptrollers' offices was requisite, by which they should be furnished with specific information, instead of being, as at present, compelled to go through the vouchers when filed away. His object was to ascertain distinctly, item by item, how the money of the Government was expended. He desired also to avoid these miscellaneous expendi. tures, which the people did not understand; but particularly at this time he hoped the committee would see the propriety of suspending this appropriation for extra clerk hire.

Mr. FILLMORE confessed that he was a little surprised at so long a speech on so small an item. He was as ready, however, to discuss this question now, as he would be at any future time; and he would make such an explanation as he trusted would be satisfactory to the gentleman. The gentleman said that he made the motion to strike out this appropriation for extra clerk-hire merely for the purpose of testing the question whether, in any case, an appropriation should be made for that object in any of the departments. Now, this subject underwent a good deal of discussion at the last session; and he had hoped that it was then definitively settled by the act then passed. If the gentleman would take the trouble to look into the laws of the last session, he would find that these appropriations, being liable to abuse in consequence of their general character, were stricken out of the general appropriation bill, and embodied in a bill framed provide for them all, and specifying each particular object. The committee, in reporting this bill, did not stop there, bu inserted a section, not only for the purpose of guarding against abuses, but for avoiding these annual discussions of small matters. It was, however, necessary that these appropriations should be made. You must (said Mr. F.) either employ a force of permanent clerks sufficiently large, not only to carry on the ordinary business of the departments, but to meet all the extraordinary calls that may be made on them, by Congress or otherwise; or you must employ a force sufficient to carry on all the ordinary business, and allow the departments to employ extra clerks for extraordinary business. The latter mode was unquestionably the more economical.

Mr. F. here handed up to the Chair the law passed at the last session, and directed the Clerk to read the 10th and 11th sections; which was done. These sections provide that no extra clerks shall be employed in any of the executive departments, except daring the session of Congress, to enable them to meet the calls of Congress; and then only when the heads of departments shall believe that the employment of such extra clerks is indispensably necessary for the public service.

Mr. GILMER was aware of the law to which the gentleman alluded, and he believed the law was a very good one. But here was no evidence showing that the employment of extra clerks was necessary; and the making the appropriation in advance, was encouraging the departments to employ extra clerks, whether necessary or not. He would ask the gentleman from New York if he had any information showing the necessity of employing extra clerks.

Mr. FILLMORE said that the business which would require the employment of extra clerks could not be foreseen; that depending almost altogether on the calls that might be made by Congress, and therefore the departments could not say how much would be necessary.

Mr. GILMER said, then this appropriation was to provide in advance for the payment of services that might or might not be necessary; and he was therefore opposed to it. The state of the treasury admonished them to avoid useless expense; and if it should be ascertained, before the close of the session, that the public service required the employment of extra clerks, it would be then time enough to make the appropriation.

Mr. SMITH of Virginia inquired of his colleague how the service was to be paid for, if no appropriation was made, should the heads of departments find the employment of extra clerks indispensably necessary for the public service.

Mr. GILMER said that the very law read by the chairman required that no extra clerks should be employed in any of the departments, unless the heads of departments found that their employment was indispensably necessary for the public service. Now, there was nothing here to show that the employment of extra clerks was necessary.

Mr. SMITH said that there was the power given to the heads of departments; but where was the appropriation to pay for the service rendered? Were heads of departments to employ clerks when they found it indispensably necessary to do so, in order to answer the calls that may be made by Congress, and then trust to the contingency of obtaining an appropriation to pay them?

Mr. BLACK said that he would vote for the appropriation with pleasure, if there was any report from the departments showing that it would be necessary. He understood this appropriation was proposed for labor to be done hereafter. But upon what data, on what information, and for what necessity was this appropriation to be made? Whenever the departments should have complied with the act of last session, he should be willing to vote the money.

Mr. SMITH of Virginia sail he had a few remarks to make on the subject before the committee. It seemed to him that the appropriation was proper, and should be made. It was for clerks not in regular employment, and who might not and would not be employed unless there was service for them to perform. It was true that no duties now existed to be performed; yet such might arise. Suppose Congress should make calls for information, to be prepared during the recess; it would be absolutely necessary to employ extra clerks. How were they to be paid without an appropriation?

Mr. BLACK had no doubt of the general correctness of the position of the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. SMITH;] but he wished to know whether the law of Congress, making it the duty of the departments to report the necessity of employing these extra clerks, had been complied with?

Mr. FILLMORE remarked that the law merely required a report of past expenditures; it had nothing to do with future ones. Next year, the report would come in, stating how the money now proposed to be appropriated had been expended.

Mr. SMITH of Virginia resumed, and read a portion of the law of last session, specifying when extra clerks shall be employed, and what shall be the duty of the departments in relation thereto. It would be perceived that the difficulty of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. BLACK] was obviated by the fact, that a report of the manner in which this money had been spent would, according to the law, have to be made at the next session of Congress. Again: he knew of a case where a call was made for information two years since, and not complied with, owing to the inadequacy of labor in the department. Would the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. BLACK] have the clerks in employment without pay? Such would be the case, unless this appropriation were passed.

In making these remarks, he did not hesitate to avow his belief that there were many inefficient clerks in the departments, and much room for reform. It was often the case that clerks who