Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

H. or R.

Apportionment of Representation.

Virginia delegation, I believe, would most of us have preferred 40,000 to a member, but we took 37,000, to prevent what Rhode Island and Connecticut alleged would have been injustice to them, namely, a reduction of their numbers in this body.

For this act of conciliation, how, sir, have we been requited by the small States? They have united in rejecting the ratio of 37,000, and in taking a smaller one, which throws almost all the large fractions on the southern part of the Union. I am very far from ascribing any incorrect intention to any one. I would not, in the slightest degree, insinuate that it was the intention of the Senate, or that it is now within the view of this House to do injustice to any section of this Confederacy. Yet, from the enactment of this bill, as amended by the Senate, the most obvious and manifest injustice would accrue to almost the entire southern portion of the Union. This will appear from a superficial view of the results arising from the ratio of 35,000, which has been substituted by the Senate.

The nine States to the north and eastward of Maryland contain the federal number of 3,546,848, and then their aggregate fractions or remainders amount to 81,864. The eight Southern States, inclusive of Maryland, comprise the federal num

ber (deducting for the slaves) of 3,037,412. Thus

three and a half millions in the North have about eighty thousand unrepresented, while only about 3,000,000 in the South have near one hundred and seventy thousand unrepresented. The disproportion is enormous. If the Northern States have 81,000 of remainders, the Southern States, according to the law of proportion, should have 69,000. But they have in fact 167,000, from which, if you deduct the rightful proportion of 69,000, it will be evident that they have an over proportion of unrepresented remainders, amounting to 98,000. By adopting the Senate's amendment, the Eastern States, moreover, gain nine Representatives, and the Southern States two only. The ratio of 35,000 is therefore peculiarly unequal in its operation, and consequently unjust. If, Mr. Speaker, the principles which at first Just guided us upon this subject are now to be deserted, all that I ask is equality. It was a few days ago remarked by a venerable gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. MACON,) that at last he expected this matter would resolve itself into pen and ink calculation. Although I reposed much in the discernment of that gentleman, I then hoped his prediction would not be fulfilled. I, however, now begin to discover strong indications that it is to be verified. If so, let this affair be referred for an arithmetical estimate. Let the calculations be only made with tolerable accuracy, and I am content.

The gentleman from Maryland has declared his object to be the reduction of the aggregate fraction, and he therefore takes the smallest ratio. The entire fraction at 37,000 is 52,000 greater than at 35,000. Waiving all other objections to the gentleman's reasoning, I would ask him if it is not better that the whole nation should have

DECEMBER, 1811.

an additional unrepresented remainder of 52,000 than that the Southern country alone should have a disproportionate unrepresented remainder of 98,000? It is certainly better that the whole should yield fifty than one-half near an hundred.

Geographical comparisons and local distinetions are at all times, sir, repugnant to my feelings. I avoid them whenever it is in my power. But I have been driven into the remarks which I have made by the course this business and the debate upon it have taken. And I am sorry that I am under the necessity of still trespassing for a moment on the attention of the House while I answer some observations of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. SMILIE.) If I understood the gentleman, he said the secret was, that the Southern people wanted the preponderance. Is it meant, sir, to convey, by these expressions, an insinuation that there are Southern men on this floor who act in a secret, clandestine way? Who profess one motive and act from another? Whatever may be intended, the observation is unmerited, and I repel it. I will not, for a moment, allow myself to believe that there is any man in this Assembly who would be capable of such conduct.

I regret, Mr. Speaker that the gentleman has thought it necessary on this occasion to call over

the roll of appointments that have been conferred on particular States, and that he has entered into a comparison of the favors received by Virginia and Pennsylvania in this respect. Topics of this sort are extremely painful to me, and invidious in themselves. Without, therefore, entering myself at all on the subject, I will only observe, that if, in fact, from Virginia there have been more high federal officers than from Pennsylvania, I will leave it entirely to the gentleman from that

State to calculate the causes of it. 1

After considerable further debate the question that the House do concur with the Senate in their first amendment, to wit: to strike out the words "thirty-seven," before the word "thousand," and insert "thirty-five," being taken, it was determined in the negative-yeas 65; nays 64.

Those who voted in the affirmative, are

William Anderson, Stevenson Archer, Daniel Avery, Ezekiel Bacon, Josiah Bartlett, Abijah Bigelow, Harmanus Bleecker, Adam Boyd, Elijah Brigham, Epaphroditus Champion, Martin Chittenden, Thomas B. Cooke, John Davenport, jr., Roger Davis, Samuel Dinsmore, William Ely, James Emott, William Findley, James Fisk, Asa Fitch, Thomas R. Gold, Charted Goldsborough, Isaiah L. Green, Bolling Hall, Obed Hall, John A. Harper, John M. Hyneman, Richard Jackson, jr., Philip B. Key, Lyman Law, Robert Le Roy Livingston, Alexander McKim, Arunah Metcalf, James Milnor, Samuel L. Mitchill, Jonathan O. Moseley, William Paulding, jr., William Piper, Timothy Pitkin, junior, Benjamin Pond, Peter B. Porter, Elisha R. Potter, Josiah Quincy, William Reed, Henry M. Ridgely, Ebenezer Sage, Thomas Sammons, Ebenezer Seaver, Samuel Shaw, John Smilie, George Smith, Silas Stow, William Strong, Lewis B. Sturges, George Sullivan, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Peleg Tallman, Uri Tracy, Charles Turner, jr., Pierre Van

[blocks in formation]

Cortlandt, jr., Laban Wheaton, Leonard White, William Widgery, and Robert Wright.

Those who voted in the negative are

Willis Alston, jr., John Baker, David Bard, Burwell Bassett, William W. Bibb, William Blackledge, Thomas Blount, James Breckenridge, Robert Brown, William A. Burwell. William Butler, John C. Calhoun, Langdon Cheves, John Clopton, Lewis Condit, William Crawford, John Dawson, Joseph Desha, Elias Earle, Meshack Franklin, Thomas Gholson, Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Felix Grundy, Aylet Aylett Hawes, Jacob Hufty, Richard M. Johnson, Joseph Kent, William R. King, Abner Lacock, Joseph Lefever, Joseph Lewis, junior., Peter Little, William Lowndes,

H. or R.

Mr. PORTER said that the House were probably expecting from the Committee of Foreign Relations some explanations of their views in reporting the resolutions now under consideration, in addition to the general exposition of them contained in the report itself. The committee themselves felt that such explanations were due, inasmuch as they had only reported in part, and had intimated their intention to follow up these résolutions, should they be adopted, by the recommendation of ulterior measures.

The committee, Mr. P. said, after examining the various documents accompanying the President's Message, were satisfied, as he presumed

Aaron Lyle, Nathaniel Macon, George C. Maxwell, every member of the House was, that all hopes of Thomas Moore, Archibald McBryde, William McCoy, accommodating our differences with Great Britain Samuel McKee, James Morgan, Jeremiah Morrow, by negotiation must be abandoned. When they Hugh Nelson, Thomas Newbold, Thomas Newton, looked at the correspondence between the two Stephen Ormsby, Joseph Pearson, Israel Pickens, Governments; when they observed the miserable

The other amendments of the Senate to the bill being governed by the first amendment, were, consequently, disagreed to,

It was then ordered, on motion of Mr. RAN

DOLPH, that a conference be held with the Senate on the subject-matter of the said amendments; and Mr. RANDOLPH, Mr. LACOCK, and Mr. CONDIT, were appointed managers at the said conference on the part of this House.

James Pleasants, jr., John Randolph, Samuel Ring- shifts and evasions (for they were entitled to no gold, John Rhea, John Roane, Jonathan Roberts, John better appellation) to which Great Britain resorted Smith, Richard Stanford, Philip Stuart, John Taliato excuse the violations of our maritime rights, it ferro, George M. Troup, Robert Whitehill, David R. Williams, Thomas Wilson, and Richard Winn. was impossible not to perceive that her conduct towards us was not regulated even by her own sense of justice, but solely by a regard to the probable extent of our forbearance. The last six years had been marked by a series of progressive encroachments on our rights; and the principles by which she publicly upheld her aggressions, were as mutable as her conduct. We had seen her one year advancing doctrines, which the year before she had reprobated. We had seen her one day capturing our vessels under pretexts, which on the preceding day she would have been ashamed or afraid to avow. Indeed, said Mr. P., she seems to have been constantly and carefully feeling our pulse, to ascertain what potions we would bear; and if we go on submitting to one indignity after another, it will not be long before we shall see British subjects, not only taking our property in our harbors, but trampling on our persons in the streets of our cities.

FRIDAY, December 6.

Mr. Eмотт presented a petition of Harrison and Lewis, of the city of New York, merchants, praying permission to import from the British West India islands, goods to the amount of debts owing to them by certain inhabitants in said islands. Referred to the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures.

Mr. SMILIE presented a memorial of the Presdent and Managers of the Union Canal Company of Pennsylvania, praying the aid and patronage of the General Government in accomplishing the extensive and useful works in which they are engaged; which was read, and referred to a select committee.

Messrs. SMILIE, RIDGELY, RINGGOLD, BAKER, and BLEECKER, were appointed the committee.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate insist on their amend ments, disagreed to by this House, to the bill "for the apportionment of Representatives among the several States according to the third enumeration;" agree to the proposed conference, and have appointed managers on their part at the same.

FOREIGN RELATIONS.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, to which Committee of the Whole was committed the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations, made some days ago.

The report having been read

Having become convinced that all hopes from further negotiation were idle, the committee, Mr. P. said, were led to the consideration of another question, which was-whether the maritime rights which Great Britain is violating were such as we ought to support at the hazard and expense of a war? And he believed he was correct in stating that the committee was unanimously of the opinion that they were. The committee thought that the Orders in Council, so far as they go to interrupt our direct trade, that is, the carrying of the productions of this country to a market in the ports of friendly nations, and returning with the proceeds of theim-ought to be resisted by war. How far we ought to go in support of what is commonly called the carrying trade, although the question was agitated in the committee, no definitive opinion was expressed. It was not deemed necessary, at this time, to express such an opinion, inasmuch as the injury we sustain by the inhibition of this trade is merged in the greater one to our direct trade.

The Orders in Council, Mr. P. said, of which there seemed now to be no prospect of a speedy

[blocks in formation]

repeal-certainly none during the continuance of the present war-authorized the capture of our vessels bound to and from ports where British commerce is not favorably received; and as that nation is at war with most of the civilized world, the effect was (as he understood from those who had much better information on the subject than he could pretend to) to cut up, at once, about three-fourths of our best and most profitable commerce. It was impossible that the mercantile or agricultural interests of the United States, which on the question of a right to the direct trade could never be separated, could submit to such impositions. It was his opinion, that going upon the ground of a mere pecuniary calculation, a calculation of profits and loss, it would be for our interest to go to war to remove the Orders in Council, rather than submit to them, even during the term of their probable continuance.

But there was another point of view in which the subject presented itself to the committee, and that was as regarded the character of the country. We were a young nation, and he hoped we cherished a little pride and spirit, as well as a great deal of justice and moderation. Our situation was not unlike that of a young man just entering into life, and who, if he tamely submitted to one cool, deliberate, intentional indignity, might safely calculate to be kicked and cuffed for the whole of the remainder of his life; or, if he should after wards undertake to retrieve his character, must do it at ten times the expense which it would have cost him at first to support it. We should clearly understand and define those rights which as a nation we ought to support, and we should support them at every hazard. If there be any such thing as rights between nations surely the people of the United States, occupying the half of a continent, have a right to navigate the seas, without being molested by the inhabitants of the little island of Great Britain.

It was under these views of the subject that the committee did not hesitate to give it as their opinion that we ought to go to war in opposition to the Orders in Council. But as to the extent of the war and the time when it should be commenced, there would of course be some diversity of sentiment in the House, as there was, at first, in the committee.

DECEMBER, 1811.

could harass, if not destroy, the vast and profitable commerce which she is constantly carrying on to every part of this continent. We could destroy her fisheries to the north; we could depredate upon her commerce to the West India islands, which is passing by our doors; we could annoy her trade along the coast of South America; we could even carry the war to her own shores in Europe. But, Mr. P. said, there was another point where we could attack her, and where she would feel our power still more sensibly. We could deprive her of her extensive provinces lying along our borders to the north. These provinces were not only immensely valuable in themselves, but almost indispensable to the existence of Great Britain, cut off as she now is in a great measure, from the north of Europe. He had been credibly informed that the exports from Quebec alone amounted, during the last year, to near six millions of dollars, and most of these too in articles of the first necessity-in ship timber and in provisions for the support of her fleets and armies. By carrying on such a war as he had described, at the public expense, on land, and by individual enterprise at sea, we should be able in a short time to remunerate ourselves tenfold for all the spoliations she had committed on our commerce.

It was with a view to make preparations for such a war, that the committee had offered the resolutions on the table. Whether the means recommended were adequate to the object, or whether they were best adapted to the end, it would be for the House, when they came to discuss them separately, to determine. For himself, Mr. P. said, and he presumed such were the feelings of all the members of the committee, he should have no objections to any modifications of them which might be agreeable to the House, so that the great object was still retained. If these resolutions, or any other similar to them in object, should pass; it was then the intention of the committee, as soon as the forces contemplated to be raised should be in any tolerable state of preparation, to recommend the employment of them for the purposes for which they shall have been raised, unless Great Britain shall, in the mean time, have done us justice. In short, it was the determination of the committee to recommend open and decided war-a war as vigorous and effective as the resources of the country and the relative situation of ourselves and our enemy would enable us to prosecute.

That we can contend with Great Britain openly and even handed on the element where she injures us, it would be folly to pretend. Were it even in our power to build a navy which should The committee, Mr. P. said, have not recombe able to cope with her, no man who has any mended this course of measures without a full regard for the happiness of the people of this sense of the high responsibility which they have country would venture to advise such a measure. taken upon themselves. They are aware that All the fame and glory which the British navy war, even in its best and fairest form, is an evil kas acquired at sea, have been dearly paid for in deeply to be deprecated. But it is sometimes, the sufferings and misery of that ill-fated people and on few occasions perhaps more than on this, at home-sufferings occasioned in a great mea- a necessary evil. For myself, I confess I have sure by the expense of that stupendous establish-approached the subject not only with diffidence, ment. But without such a navy the United but with awe. But I will never shrink from my States could make a serious impression upon duty because it is arduous or unpleasant; and I Great Britain, even at sea. We could have, with- can most religiously declare that I never acted in six months after a declaration of war, hundreds under stronger or clearer convictions of duty than of privateers in every part of the ocean. Wel I do now in recommending these preparatory DECEMBER, 1811.

Foreign Relations.

H. or R.

The second resolution for raising ten thousand

regulars being under consideration

Mr. LITTLE moved to strike out ten thousand and insert fifteen thousand.

Mr. FISK moved to insert thirty thousand.

Mr. ALSTON wished to leave the number subject to the discretion of the President, not exceeding fifty thousand men. If the number was fixed, the President must appoint officers, whether the men were raised or not.

The question was taken on striking out the number ten thousand, &c., and carried by a large majority.

The question now being on the number which was to be inserted in lieu of it

Mr. PORTER was in favor of a practicable number of regulars, relying on volunteers for effective service as well as regulars.

Mr. LITTLE spoke in support of his motion. Mr. WRIGHT Spoke in favor of a large number of regulars.

measures; or, than I shall ultimately in recom-
mending war, in case Great Britain shall not have
rescinded her Orders in Council, and made some
satisfactory arrangements in respect to the im-
pressment of our seamen. If there should be any
gentlemen in the House who were not satisfied
that we ought to go to war for our maritime
rights, Mr. P. earnestly entreated that they would
not vote for the resolutions. Do not, said he, let
us raise armies, unless we intend to employ them.
If we do not mean to support the rights and honor
of the country, let us not drain it of its resources.
Mr. P. said he was aware that there were many
gentlemen in the House who were dissatisfied
that the committee had not gone further, and
recommended an immediate declaration of war,
or the adoption of some measure which would
have instantly precipitated us into it. But he
confessed such was not his opinion. He had no
idea of plunging ourselves headlong into a war
with a powerful nation, or even a respectable
province, when we had not three regiments of
men to spare for that service. He hoped that we
should not be influenced by the howlings of news-
papers, nor by a fear that the spirit of the Twelfth
Congress would be questioned, to abandon the
plainest dictates of common sense and common
discretio
discretion. He was sensible that there were many
good men out of Congress, as well as many of his
best friends in it, whose appetites were prepared
for a war feast. He was not surprised at it, for men.
he knew the provocatives had been sufficiently
great. But he hoped they would not insist on
calling in the guests, at least, until the table
should have been spread. When this was done,
he pledged himself, in behalf of the Committee of
Foreign Relations, that the gentlemen should not
be disappointed of the entertainment for want of
bidding; and he believed he might also pledge
himself for many of the members of the com-
mittee, that they would not be among the last
to partake personally, not only in the pleasures,
if any there should be, but in all the dangers of
the revelry.

Mr. P. said that this was the time and occasion on which, above all others, within his experience,

we should act in concert. If the ultimate object of the great body of this House and of this nation was the same, and so far as he had been ascertain the sentiments of both, it was-there would be no difficulty in attaining it. But

must yield something to the opinions, and to the feelings of each other. Instead of indulging in

party reflections and recriminations in this House, he hoped that the whole of the House and of the Union would form but one party and consider a foreign nation as the other.

Mr. P. said he had risen merely for the purpose of explaining to the House the opinions and views of the committee in relation to the resolutions now to be discussed, and he should be satisfied if he had been so fortunate as to succeed.

The question was then taken on the first resolution for filling the ranks of the present army, &c., and carried.

12th CON. 1st SESS.-14

Mr. FISK spoke in favor of thirty thousand; he was desirous that our measures should be effectual.

Mr. LITTLE spoke in favor of the House fixing the number, in preference to leaving it discretionary with the Executive.

Mr. NELSON spoke in favor of the number reported by the committee.

Mr. SEYBERT spoke in favor of thirty thousand
He was desirous of acting efficiently if

at all.

Mr. WRIGHT spoke in reply to Mr. NELSON, and in favor of regular troops in preference to volunteers.

Mr. SMILIE thought ten thousand men would be a sufficient number, together with the volunteers, for any object they might be wanted for.

Mr. PORTER proposed that the number should remain blank, as it could be better fixed when the bill was brought in, in pursuance of the resolution.

Mr. NELSON spoke in reply to some observations of Mr. WRIGHT on the relative importance of regulars and volunteers; and Mr. WRIGHT rejoined.

On the suggestion of Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS,

the motions to fill the blank created by striking

out "ten thousand," were withdrawn; and the

resolution, thus varied, was agreed to.

The 3d, 4th, and 5th resolutions, authorizing

volunteers, militia, and equipment of our little navy, were agreed to by the Committee of the

Whole.

The sixth resolution, to permit our merchant vessels to arm in self-defence, against all unlawful proceedings against them, being under con

sideration

Mr. MCKEE spoke against it, conceiving it at variance with the system comprised in the other resolutions. He had no idea of merely resisting; if attacked, he would retaliate.

Mr. SMILIE supported the resolution. If we were not now in war, he said he verily believed

we soon should be.

Mr. WRIGHT Look the same ground with Mr.

[blocks in formation]

MCKEE, and moved to amend the resolution by adding thereto words similar to the following: "And if attacked by any vessel contrary to the law of nations, to capture and bring them in for adjudication."

Mr. PORTER explained. The proposed amendment would make the resolution an act of war, which it was not the intention of the committee - to declare in this report, or to commence until they had prepared for it.

Mr. WRIGHT's motion was lost.

Mr. MCKEE said the parties had joined issue, the pleadings were made up; the case was now to be decided by battle, and not by jury. He, therefore, desired to retain the sinews of our strength, and moved an amendment contemplating an embargo for ninety days on vessels in our ports, &c.

The motion was declared to be out of order.
The sixth resolution was then agreed to.

The Committee rose and reported their agreement to the resolution.

The House took up the report.

The question was put on the first resolutionMr. RANDOLPH, wishing time, moved that the report lie on the table.-Motion lost-65 to 50. The question was then taken on the first resolution, in the following words:

"Resolved, That the Military Establishment, as authorized by the existing laws, ought to be immediately completed by filling up the ranks, and prolonging the enlistment of the troops; and that to encourage enlistments, a bounty in lands ought to be given in addition to the pay and bounty now allowed by law."

The following are the yeas and nays on the question:

YEAS-Willis Alston, jr., William Anderson, Stevenson Archer, Daniel Avery, Ezekiel Bacon, John

Baker, David Bard, Josiah Bartlett, Burwell Bassett,

William W. Bibb, William Blackledge, Harmanus Bleecker, Thomas Blount, Adam Boyd, James Breckenridge, Robert Brown, William A. Burwell, William Butler, John C. Calhoun, Langdon Cheves, Martin Chittenden, John Clopton, Thomas B. Cooke, Lewis Condit, William Crawford, Roger Davis, John Dawson, Joseph Desha, Elias Earle, William Ely, James Emott, William Findley, James Fisk, Asa Fitch, Meshack Franklin, Thomas Gholson, Thomas R. Gold, Charles Goldsborough, Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Isaiah L. Green, Felix Grundy, Bolling Hall, Obed Hall, John A. Harper, Aylett Hawes, Jacob Hufty, John M. Hyneman, Richard M. Johnson, Joseph Ke Kent, Philip B. Key, William R. King, Abner Lacock, Joseph Lefever, Joseph Lewis, jr., Peter Little, Robert Le Roy Livingston, William Lowndes, Aaron Lyle, Nathaniel Macon, George C. Maxwell, Thomas Moore, Archibald McBryde, William McCoy, Samuel McKee, Alexander McKim, Arunah Metcalf, James Milnor, Samuel L. Mitchill, James Morgan, Jonathan O. Moseley, Hugh Nelson, Thomas Newbold, Thomas Newton, Stephen Ormsby, William Paulding, jr., Joseph Pearson, Israel Pickens, William Piper, Timothy Pitkin, jr., James Pleasants, jr., Benjamin Pond, Peter B. Porter, Josiah Quincy, William Reed, Henry M. Ridgely, Samuel Ringgold, John Rhea, John Roane, Jonathan Roberts, Ebenezer Sage, Thomas Sammons, Ebenezer Seaver, Adam Seybert, Samuel Shaw, John Smilie, George Smith, John Smith,

DECEMBER, 1811.

Philip Stuart, Silas Stow, William Strong, George Sullivan, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Peleg Tallman, John Taliaferro, Uri Tracy, George M. Troup, Charles Turner, jr., Pierre Van Cortlandt, jr., Leonard White, Robert Whitehill, David R. Williams, William Widgery, Thomas Wilson, Richard Winn, and Robert Wright-117.

NAYS-Abijah Bigelow, Elijah Brigham, Epaphroditas Champion, John Davenport, jr., Richard Jackson, jr., Lyman Law, Elisha R. Potter, John Randolph, Richard Stanford, Lewis B. Sturges, and Laban Wheaton-11.

Mr. GOLDSBOROUGH, after expressing his readiness, should war be once determined and declared by the Administration, to go all lengths to support it, but wishing further time for reflection on so important a subject, made a motion to adjourn; which was carried, and the House adjourned.

[ocr errors]

SATURDAY, December 7.

Mr. PLEASANTS presented a remonstrance and petition of sundry inhabitants of St. Louis, in the Territory of Louisiana, stating the many injuries and inconveniences which would result from a change in their form of government, and praying that no alteration may be made in their said form of government.-Referred to the Committee of the Whole on the bill providing for the government of the said Territory.

Mr. RHEA presented a petition of sundry inhabitants of the Territory of Louisiana, praying that the second grade of Territorial government may be extended to the the said Territory.-Referred to the Committee of the Whole on the bill providing for the government of the said Territory.

Mr. LYLE presented a petition of the Synod of Pittsburg, in Pennsylvania, praving that the mails may not be carried, and that post offices may not be kept open on the Sabbath day. Referred to the Posmaster General, to consider and report thereon to the House.

On motion of Mr. TALLMADGE, the Postmaster' General was directed to lay before the House an estimate, in detail, of the expense which would necessarily be incurred to repair the building which has been purchased by the Government for the accommodation of the General Post Office and Patent Office, that the objects for which said purchase was made may be carried into effect.

Mr. JENNINGS, from the committee appointed on the twenty-eighth ultimo, presented a bill to authorize the election of Sheriff's in the Indiana Territory, and for other purposes; which was read twice, and committed to a Committee of the Whole on Friday next.

MONDAY, December 9..
REMISSION OF DUTIES.

Mr. NEWTON, from the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures, made an unfavorable report on the petition of Taylor and Richards; which was concurred in. The report is as follows:

« AnteriorContinuar »