H. OF R.]

Revolutionary Transactions.-Judicial Contempts.

[FEB. 1, 1831.

REVOLUTIONARY TRANSACTIONS.

The SPEAKER laid before the House the memorial and Raimbeaux, merchants, of Bordeaux, in France, in the period of the revolutionary war, upon the subject of the claims of said house against the United States, arising out of transactions during the said war; which was read, referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and ordered to be printed.

JUDICIAL CONTEMPTS.

Mr. DRAPER, of Virginia, by leave of the House, submitted for consideration the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be di rected to inquire into the expediency of defining by statute all offences which may be punished as contempts of the courts of the United States.

greater than to those of other parts of the Union? The The effect of this decision being to set aside the amendvery same day that the fire occurred in Alexandria, pro- ment of Mr. BLAIR, the question was put on agreeing to perty, to a far greater extent, was destroyed by the same the resolution, and decided, by yeas and nays, in the affirmelement in Cincinnati, Ohio; but he had never heard that ative -yeas 108, nays 79. those sufferers applied to Congress for relief. There were many sufferers in the United States--many objects of charity-but they did not call upon Congress to help them. Continue to pass resolutions of the character of of the heirs and representatives of the house of Basmarien that now before the House, and what would be the consequence? Why, every winter, when the snow fell, or the Potomac was frozen over, applications would be made to Congress, and members would be engaged in the dignified object of buying and stowing wood, to give to the poor of the District of Columbia. Mr. P. remarked that, in opposing the resolution now under consideration, he did it on principle: the House had not the power to make the donation requested. He might be told that Congress was the exclusive Legislature for the District. Be it so. But was that any good reason that they should give away all the revenue of the nation to the people of the District of Columbia? If so, the poor of the other sections of the country had nothing to do but to come and sit down here, in this District, and apply to Congress for relief. It was not to the amount proposed to be given that he objected-no, not the paltry cost of thirty cords of wood; but he would state that gentlemen came here to legislate on the great concerns of the Union, and not to give away the public property. It was not money from the treasury, but the expense was to be defrayed by the contingent fund of this House. That fund was voted for the use of the House; there should be some discretion in its application; and if we may give away a part of it, for purposes other than for what it was intended, we may give away the whole. He might well address himself, on this occasion, to those who, by the operation of the previous question, had cut off all opportunity of remark on a former similar subject. Their motives were kind, no doubt, and he gave them credit for them; a severe storm was raging, and they yielded to their feelings as men. No such reason could be urged now, however; for the present was one of the most pleasant days they had enjoyed for some time. But it was said the poor of Georgetown were suffering-so may be the poor of New York, and other sections of the Union. In conclusion, he trusted that the House would, by its vote today, put a check to legislation on matters of this sort.

The resolution having been read,

Mr. DRAPER said that he had offered this resolution under the deepest sense of duty. It was not his intention, he said, on this occasion, to agitate a question which had been recently much agitated elsewhere. But, said he, I do wish to know upon what tenure the people of this country hold their liberties. I wish to know whether, if I myself choose to go into the public newspapers to vindicate any vote I give here, it be not competent for any man, who thinks proper to do so, to enter the same forum, upon equal ground, to show that my opinion is wrong. If I, as a member of this House, or this House as a body, should set forth to the world any opinion upon a matter before us, has not any one a right, through the same medium, to question the correctness of that opinion? Does not that opinion, from the moment of its publication, be come public property? Does it not present as fair a subject for discussion as any that can be presented to the mind of man? The object of such a publication of an opinion is to convince the readers of it that a certain proposition is right. If the object of a publication be to convince the public at large that any particular proposi tion agitated here is correct, is it not competent for any citizen to call in question the correctness of such an opinion? Surely it is. If, then, we have not the power of promulgating our opinions, under the protection of a garb of official sanctity, I should like to know if any other department of the Government has a right to go before the public with a vindication of its opinions, without any citizen who chooses having the right of reply to them, or comment upon them. This body has, I admit, a right to preserve decorum and order within these walls, and to remove from within them any one who may disturb the proceedings of this House. But if, after having acted upon any subject, a majority of this House shall choose to go into the newspapers, to state the grounds on which we have acted, I maintain that any citizen whatever has a right to meet us there, and contest those grounds. Any solitary individual has, under such circumstances, a right to meet and confront the whole body of the majority of this House. If this reasoning apply to the legislative body, does it not, in an equal degree, apply to every Mr. STORRS, of New York, asked, what was the Legis- other department of the Government? I maintain that it lature of the District of Columbia? As the answer to that does. Whenever an individual in office lays aside his question would imply the power of the House to grant the official capacity, and endeavors by argument and reason proposed relief, yet not to grant a similar relief to the to convince others that any thing which he has done offipeople of Ohio, or any other State having its own legisla- cially, has been done properly, he has a right to be met ture, Congress stood in the same relation to this territory by whomsoever, differing in opinion from him, in any as the Legislature of New York did to hers. He concluded a few remarks, by demanding the previous question. The call was seconded, 90 to 86; and the main question was ordered.

Mr. BLAIR, of South Carolina contended, that it was not competent for the House to vote donations of fuel for the people of the District. If so, it would have power also to vote millions of the public money to feed and clothe the suffering poor of the District. The House had no right to give away the public money for any such purpose; and if gentlemen were disposed to be liberal, let them be liberal out of their own money. He, therefore, moved the following substitute, by way of amendment, viz.

"That the Sergeant-at-arms be required to deduct from the compensation of the members of this House one day's pay, and deliver said sum to the Mayor of Georgetown, to be applied to purchase fuel for the paupers of that town: Provided, nevertheless, that such deduction shall be made from the compensation of such members only as vote in favor of this resolution."

Mr. POLK asked for the yeas and nays on the amendment, observing that he would vote for it with the greatest pleasure.

forum which he himself may select. Believing this, I have prepared this resolution, under a deep sense of the duty which I owe, not only to myself, but to the sixty thousand

FEB. 1, 1831.]

Claim of James Monroe.

[H. of R.

Mr. HUNTINGTON would vote for the amendment of Mr. WILLIAMS, and trusted that, if that should not prevail, the House would act upon the matter at once. Mr. MALLARY was decidedly in favor of the claim, and would have been willing to relieve the distinguished individual referred to from all his embarrassments. He should support the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. DRAYTON thought enough had already been allowed to Mr. Monroe. He referred to former legislation of the House, and spoke, not hearing the arguments of others, but from his own experience.

freemen whom I represent on this floor. I am not for Mr. STORRS, of New York, thought it would be perholding my liberty for one moment at the discretion of fectly safe to refer the accounts of Mr. Monroe to the any individual. It may be said, sir, in opposition to the accounting officers. He hoped they would be settled by object of this resolution, that there will be difficulty in them, and never come before Congress again. defining contempts of court. Though this may be true, we shall find no difficulty in defining what are not contempts. We can embrace, in any legal provision on this subject, many cases which are not contempts. We might say, for example, that it would not be a contempt of court to express an opinion upon any decision finally made in court, &c. We might declare that it should not be a contempt of court in any one to say that a judge is not immaculate. I beg not to be understood, said Mr. D., as here referring to a case which has been lately before the other branch of this Legislature, sitting as a high court of impeachment. Far be it from me to reflect upon the conduct of any individual, who for such conduct has been Mr. ANGEL addressed the House as follows: constitutionally tried, and legally acquitted. But the law Mr. SPEAKER: I shall vote for the amendment offered ought to be so clear, that every individual may be able to by the gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. WILLIAMS.] look to the statute book, and know whether, in any thing I shall vote for it on the ground that it reserves to this that he may do, he acts within the law or not. For the House the settlement of the principles on which the apsecurity of the rights of the whole people, and for no pur-propriation for this claim, if allowed, shall be made. By pose of invidious allusion or personal gratification, I invite the constitution of the United States, the appropriating this inquiry. It is proper, sir, that every individual in power is specially confided to this House. As the immethe community should know what are the laws which he diate representatives of the people, the members of this is bound to observe at the peril of his liberty. House are responsible for all moneys drawn from the Mr. DODDRIDGE, concurring with his colleague in treasury. The amendment, as offered by the gentleman the expediency of this inquiry, suggested to him the pro- from Virginia, [Mr. MERCER,] proposes to transfer this priety of modifying his resolution, by adding to it these responsibility to the Executive Department. Sir, the subwords: and also to limit the punishment for the same."ject of Executive legislation, as it is called, has become Mr. DRAPER accepted this modification.

And, thus modified, the resolution was agreed to without a division.

CLAIM OF JAMES MONROE.

the subject of loud and long complaint. Session after session, and day after day, in each session, we hear gentlemen upon this floor uttering complaints against it. I have not made an examination or estimate, but I have frequently heard it asserted, that the amount of money

The House then took up for consideration the amend-drawn from the treasury, under Executive legislation, is ment yesterday submitted by Mr. MERCER to the bill for the relief of James Monroe; which was as follows: "Strike out from the bill all that follows the enacting clause, and insert

"That the proper accounting officers of the 'treasury, under the supervision and direction of the Secretary of War, and subject to the approval of the President of the United States, be, and they are hereby, authorized to adjust and settle all the accounts and claims of James Monroe, late President of the United States, upon principles of justice and equity.

"And be it further enacted, That, so soon as any amount shall have been found due to the said James Monroe, it shall be paid to him out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated."

nearly equal to that drawn from it under the legislation of Congress. The complaints against this irregularity are not confined to this House; they appear in the columns of the newspapers throughout the country, and the people at large are strongly inclined to restrain this practice.

By a reference to the debates upon the constitution, when it was before the people of this country for adoption, you will see that strong fears were entertained that, if the entire revenues of the country were placed at the disposal of the Federal Government, abuses would grow out of that power, and appropriations would be made, inconsistent with the public interest. It was urged that no lasting abuse would ensue; for that, by the constitution, the appropriating power was exclusively confided to the immediate representatives of the people; that they were to be elected once in two years, and were immediately responsible for the exercise of their power to their constituents; that, should they attempt to make an improper disposition of the public funds, a speedy remedy could be found in the frequent recurrence of elections. This argument prevailed, and this House was recognised as the safest depository of the appropriating power. Should "And be it further enacted, That the amount of the this House prove recreant to its duty, and refuse to hold several accounts and claims, when examined and adjust- the purse strings of the nation, who will hold them for us? ed, in the manner aforesaid, together with the principle When the immediate representatives manifest an indifferon which each item is founded, shall be reported to Con-ence as to the appropriation of the public treasure, can gress for final decision and allowance."

Mr. WILLIAMS moved to amend the amendment, by striking out all after the word treasury, and inserting the following:

"Be, and they are hereby, authorized and directed to examine and adjust all the accounts and claims of James Monroe, late President of the United States, upon the principles of justice and equity.

Mr. WILLIAMS addressed the House in support of his amendment.

Mr. SPENCER, of New York, preferred the amendment submitted by Mr. MERCER, to that then under consideration.

Mr. CHILTON addressed the House at some length against the claim, and replied to the remarks of Messrs. SPENCER, EVERETT, and MERCER. Of the two, he had a preference for that of Mr. WILLIAMS, but thought Congress, instead of Mr. Hagner, should settle the claim,

VOL. VII.-36

we expect that agents, whose responsibility is more remote, will protect the interests which we abandon? Before we sanction an appropriation, it is our province and our duty to know, to understand, and to settle the principle upon which that appropriation is made. The amendment, as offered by the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. MERCER,] proposes an unlimited appropriation, and refers the settlement of the principle upon which it is to be made to the Executive Department. What principle that department may adopt, and what amount it may award under the provisions of this amendment, should it become a

H. OF R.]

Claim of James Monroe.

[FER. 1, 1831.

law, no gentleman here can tell. We endorse the claim power of eulogy has been exhausted in portraying the in blank, and hand it over to the party, and to agents of virtues and character of the man. Far be it from me, sir, remote responsibility, to fill up. to detract from his merit. I acknowledge the high cha

Sir, I see no necessity for this reference. The claim, racter that has been assigned him. I acknowledge his agreeably to the statement of the gentleman from Vir-patriotism, his services, and the debt of gratitude we owe ginia, [Mr. MERCER,] consists of only nine items. It is not him. If he be poor, and in want, he has my sympathies; a long account, requiring a tedious examination, or a so- and, were it in my power, consistently with the duties I lution of intricate or embarrassing questions: the facts owe to the station I hold, I should cheerfully aid in his are all comprised within a narrow compass. They are relief; but, in the discharge of my duty to the public, I detailed at length in the report of the committee, and may must be governed by my judgment, not by my sympathies. be examined and understood in two hours, by any gentle- In addition to what has passed upon this floor, an exman who will devote his attention to them for that length traneous influence has been put in motion, with a view to of time. They have been a long time before Congress, operate upon the members of this body. Public meetings and I have no hesitation in saying that they are under- have been held in different places, and resolutions have stood by the members of this House, as well as they can been passed expressive of their sense of the Justice and be by gentlemen in the Executive Department. To this equity of this claim. These resolutions have been usherHouse the settlement of the question belongs, and, for ed upon us as the evidence of public sentiment, and unione, I will not attempt to evade the responsibility of set-versal anxiety of the people for the relief of Mr. Monroe. tling it. From the high character of the claimant, the When it is alleged that, from the complicated nature of decision of this claim will unavoidably be drawn into fu- this claim, the members of this House, who have examined ture precedent. It is not the amount which Mr. Monroe it, and whose duty it has been to investigate and underalone may draw, that I fear. The appropriation of mil-stand it, are incompetent to decide it, and that it is, therelions to other individuals, for similar claims, may be made fore, necessary to send it to the Executive Department to under the rule which this case may establish. This is a be settled, shall we take the expressions of those meetclaim of dollars and cents, asked as a remuneration for ings as the rule of our action? Probably not one in a services rendered, and moneys disbursed for the benefit hundred who attended them, had ever looked into the of the Government. The rule established for its allow-documents relating to it, or could assign any reason for its ance must serve as a governing principle in all future allowance, other than that Mr. Monroe deserves well of cases of claims for like services, and like disbursements. the country.

Under this Government, we cannot establish a criterion of The only ground on which this claim could be sustainpartial application. That which is "equity and justice" ed for a moment, is, that of a pecuniary indebtedness by when applied to the claim of Mr. Monroe, must be equity the Government. Mr. Monroe does not ask us to bestow

character.

It is

judgment on a claim for money, should look at, hear, or regard the decisions or recommendations of a town, county, or city meeting? These are designed to express the general judgment on subjects of policy; but they are unfit tribunals to prescribe rules for the legal adjustment of pecuniary demands, and it savors somewhat of the demagogue to apply them in such cases.

and justice when applied to every other claim of similar it upon him as a gift; and should we be so regardless of our duty as to abandon the well established rules of legal From the peculiar character of this claim, and from its adjudication, and, instead of awarding him a debt actually general notoriety, I feel extremely desirous that it should his due, should insult him with the offer of a gift, has he be settled by the appropriate tribunal-by the public not too much of the American in him to accept it? agents, under an immediate responsibility to the people, a debt that he claims, and Congress is both court and jury who feel the weight of that responsibility, and who can be to try the question, and assess his damages. Now, sir, most readily brought to account for their discharge of what would be said of a court or jury who, in forming a this duty. My objection to sending the claim to the Executive Department for settlement and liquidation, does not arise from a want of confidence in that department. For the President, and his cabinet, I entertain a high regard; but, great as is my confidence in them, I desire that they should not be required to execute a duty not properly devolving upon them. I am also averse to embarrassing Letter writers at Washington have furnished the editors them with this question. Let the appropriate duties of of papers with statements reflecting upon the conduct of each branch of the Government be kept separate, and let members of this House, some for voting against, and each stand responsible for its action. I consider it ungene- others for their inattention to this claim. These letters rous, on the part of this House, to attempt to shift its have been published, and the papers sent here; and is it unresponsibility to the President of the United States. I charitable to suppose that the design was to influence the have no doubt but that he would do justice; and let him final vote upon this question? Now, sir, in the discharge be ever so just, there are those who will endeavor to tor-of my duty as a member of this House, I cannot permit ture his acts to his prejudice. myself to be seduced by any art of persuasion, or intimidated through fear of popular denunciation, to act counter to my views of justice and propriety.

Sir, it was with great reluctance that I was impelled to say any thing upon this subject; but, from the course which the debate upon the question has taken, and from Sir, if it be now in order to advert to the merits of this the remarks which have fallen from the advocates of the claim, I will take the liberty to express my opinion upon claim, I should have been waiting in duty and respect to them. I am aware of the ungracious office I have to perA claim identified with the myself, had I given a silent vote, without repelling the form in opposing this claim. charges of illiberality and ingratitude made against those name, and services, and sufferings of James Monroe, is who vote against the claim. I am not content to be calculated to draw to it a generous feeling, and to inspire branded with illiberality or ingratitude, and yield a seem- a confidence in its merit. ing assent, by passive silence.

In 1826, a portion of this claim, together with other In doors, and out of doors, every thing that could be items, was pending before Congress. The subject elicited put in requisition, has been brought to bear upon this great interest, and underwent a thorough investigation claim. Gentlemen upon this floor have addressed us in by the members of this House at that time. I then had the most feeling and pathetic manner, in behalf of the the honor of a seat here; it became my duty to act upon claimant. We have been told of his early, constant, and it, and I bestowed great attention upon its merits. I sat devoted patriotism; of his long, arduous, and valuable ser- down to an examination with feelings of strong predilecI had a high veneration, and boundless vices; of his sufferings, his wants, and his distresses: the tion in its favor.

FEB. 1, 1831.]

amount.

regard, for the character and services of the man. I felt shall not draw interest, though the creditor may omit to an earnest desire to find proofs which would authorize make his demand for years. This rule prevails both in me to give it my support. I will not say that I examined law and equity, and the allowance of this interest would it impartially; for my feelings strongly preponderated in be a perversion of the established rule of each. favor of the claimant. I was reconciled, then, to an allow- object to its allowance in this case, for the reason that it Sir, I ance of a portion of the thirty thousand dollars then allow-would be a manifestation of fickleness on the part of the ed him; but such was the result of my examination, that I Government. It would be an innovation upon its fixed was compelled to vote against the allowance of the whole and established rules; those rules to which the claims of all its creditors are subject. Adopt this principle in your Previous to presenting the claim to Congress, Mr. Mon-settlements, and there are claims enough of this descriproe had applied to the proper department for its allow- tion, to draw from your treasury many millions of dollars. ance. It had undergone the examination and decision of Give notice, by the establishment of this precedent, that gentlemen who were then in the administration. The such claims are allowable, and you will be overwhelmed examination by the department took place at a period with them. Suppose you relax the rule in this particular when the facts and the circumstances connected with the case only, what will the next claimant say to you when claim were fresh in the recollection, and clearly within you reject his claim, predicated upon the identical printhe knowledge of those whose duty it then was to pass ciple with this? Will he not have a right to demand of upon it. The gentlemen of the department, who then you even-handed justice? and will he not have just audited and liquidated Mr. Monroe's claims, were his con- grounds for murmur and complaint, if you try his claim by temporaries in service, and were his personal and political one rule, and Mr. Monroe's by another? friends. Not satisfied with their rejection of certain items Sir, it is our pride, and our every day's boast, that our for extra expenses, and for interest, he presented the citizens all enjoy equal rights, and are all entitled to equal question to Congress, and asked that those items might privileges. What room for comment upon your boasted be settled by that body, upon principles of justice and equality would not the allowance of this claim afford? equity. After a lapse of more than fifteen years from the In 1826, the items exhibited for services and disburse-. time the subject was passed upon by the department, ments amounted to about eighteen thousand dollars. The Congress was induced to pass a bill allowing, in addition excess then claimed over that sum was exclusively for to the allowances by the department, the sum of twenty-interest accrued upon it. nine thousand five hundred dollars, which was then deem- deducting from it the three thousand dollars before menThe principal was reduced by ed and considered by the majority of Congress who voted tioned, and Mr. Monroe was allowed, by the bill passed the allowance, to be an ample and liberal liquidation and at that session, above fifteen thousand dollars of the prinpayment of all that was due to Mr. Monroe, upon princi- cipal of his alleged demand, with the interest on the same ples of law, justice, and equity; and inserted a clause in the bill, declaratory of its being in full of all his claims upon the Government. It seems that further justice and equity is now called for. If the bill of 1826 was a satisfaction in full of all his claims, the appropriation to be made by the present bill, if it became a law, must be a donation, and not a payment. The Congress of 1826 became the arbiters between Mr. Monroe and the Treasury Department. Their award was obligatory upon the treasury to pay; and, under the terms of the act, the acceptance of the money by Mr. Monroe cannot but be considered as obligatory upon him. Reciprocity of obligation upon the parties must be irresistibly implied.

from December, 1810, up to the passage of that act; which interest amounted to more than fourteen thousand dollars.

Should we now allow the twenty-four thousand dollars then rejected, we should pay to Mr. Monroe the eighteen thousand dollars of principal he then claimed, with upwards of thirty-five thousand dollars interest upon the same. ed by this Government. No such claim ever was, or ever should be, allow. Since 1826, several additional items have been annexed to those then claimed. The merits of these items have been canvassed, and clearly explained upon this floor, by gentlemen who have preceded me in opposition to this bill. I will not say that these additional items have since been hunted up, as an apology In looking into the report of the committee of last ses- for allowing to Mr. Monroe a sum of money; but I will say, sion, who reported the bill under consideration, it will be that it appears to me extraordinary that they should have seen that upwards of twenty-four thousand dollars now been omitted when the claim was before presented. I reported as being due to Mr. Monroe, and incorporated in have examined them, and I concur with the gentlemen the bill, consists of items rejected by the Congress of who have represented their utter groundlessness. It is 1826. Three thousand dollars and upwards, of this latter unnecessary to repeat their arguments, and I will not desum, is for contingent expenses, alleged to have accrued tain the House by doing so.

in England and France during his mission to those countries. In 1826, when his claim for contingent expenses of this country desire the allowance of this claim, and We have heard it alleged in this debate that the people was before the committee, they allowed him for those ex- that, should its decision be submitted to them, they would penses a sum equal to the average allowed to other min- be nearly unanimous in its favor. Sir, it is possible that, isters in like cases, His charge for those expenses was if it should go to them under the partial representations not backed by vouchers, but exhibited in gross. The of its friends in this House, they would declare in favor of charge was found to exceed the average allowed to other its justice; but should the other side of the story be told ministers by upwards of three thousand dollars, and the them--should they be told, as is the fact, that Mr. Monroe excess was therefore rejected by that committee. The had, within the last thirty-four years, received the sum of balance of this twenty-four thousand dollars is made up of about four hundred thousand dollars for his services and interest alleged to have accrued upon his claims against expenses, which amounts to an allowance of over thirty the Government previous to December, 1810, at which dollars a day for all that time; that, in addition to this allowtime he exhibited his accounts, and settled with the de-ance, we voted him money enough in 1826 to load a wagon partment. The committee of 1826 rejected this interest, with Spanish milled dollars, and that we were now called on the ground that its allowance would be contrary to the upon to give him sufficient to load two other wagons, it usage of the Government in all other cases. It was upon is not so clear to me that they would call us illiberal or the principle that no laches were imputable to the Govern- ungrateful for withholding it. ment; that it was always ready to pay its creditors when they should exhibit their accounts, and demand payment. This principle is in consonance with the principles of the common law, which declares that an unliquidated demand

ed, and moneys disbursed, is one thing: a debt of gratitude Sir, a pecuniary debt to an individual for services renderfor his patriotic devotion and unyielding fidelity to the cause of our country, is another, Could I find, amongst the proofs

H. OF R.]

Salt Springs in Illinois.

[FEB. 2, 1831.

exhibited, the evidence of a pecuniary indebtedness to vey, Hawkins, Haynes, Holland, Hoffman, Hubbard, Mr. Monroe, I would be amongst the first to vote its pay- Hunt, Huntington, Ihrie, Thomas Irwin, Jarvis, R. M. ment. That we owe him a debt of gratitude, I most cheer- Johnson, Cave Johnson, Perkins King, Adam King, Leafully acknowledge; and when a proposition shall be made vitt, Lewis, Lyon, Magee, Thomas Maxwell, McCoy, to grant him a sum of money as a donation, or pension, I McIntire, Miller, Muhlenberg, Nuckolls, Pierson, Polk, shall be prepared to act upon it. How I should act, is Potter, Roane, Sanford, Aug. H. Shepperd, Shields, now unnecessary to say. "Sufficient for the day is the Speight, Richard Spencer, James Standefer, Sterigere, evil thereof." I cannot reconcile my judgment to voting Wm. L. Storrs, Sutherland, Swann, Swift, Taylor, Test, a donation, under color of paying off a pecuniary demand. John Thomson, Tucker, Vinton, Weeks, Whittlesey, Mr. CROCKETT remarked, that the talking of gentle- Williams, Yancey. -88. men would not change a single vote, and he therefore NAYS.Messrs. Alexander, Alston, Archer, Arnold, demanded the previous question; but withdrew the de-J. S. Barbour, Barnwell, Beekman, Bouldin, Brodhead, mand on being informed of its effect.

Mr. HAMMONS renewed the demand.

Mr. MERCER and Mr. WILLIAMS both rose to inquire the effect of the previous question. If sustained, it would do away both the amendments, and the question would recur on the original bill.

Brown, Buchanan, Cambreleng, Carson, Childs, Claiborne, Clark, Coke, Coleman, Crawford, Crockett, Crocheron, Crowninshield, Daniel, John Davis, Deberry, Desha, Draper, Drayton, Duncan, Dwight, Eager, George Evans, Joshua Evans, Edward Everett, Horace Everett, Forward, Gilmore, Gurley, Hemphill, Hodges, Howard, Mr. HAMMONS would not withdraw his demand. Hughes, Ingersoll, William W. Irvin, Isacks, Johns, KenMr. WILLIAMS was perfectly willing that the pre-dall, Lamar, Lea, Lecompte, Lent, Letcher, Loyall, vious question should be sustained. Lumpkin, Mallary, Martindale, Martin, McCreery, McDufRandolph, Reed, Richardson, Rose, Russel, Scott, Wm. Mr. WILLIAMS then called for the yeas and nays on B. Shepard, Sill, Ambrose Spencer, Stephens, Henry R. his amendment. Storrs, Strong, Taliaferro, Wiley Thompson, Tracy, Mr. MERCER, in a few words, replied to those gen-Trezvant, Varnum, Verplanck, Washington, Wayne, tlemen who had spoken in favor of the amendment of the C. P. White, E. D. White, Wickliffe, Wilde, Wilson, member from North Carolina, and referred to the statute Wingate, Young.--92. book to show that seventy-seven cases had been settled on the principles of justice and equity, since the establishment of the present Government.

The demand for the previous question was not sustained fie, Mercer, Mitchell, Norton, Patton, Pierce, Pettis, by the House.

After a short explanation by Mr. WILLIAMS, the question was put on the amendment offered by him to Mr. MERCER'S amendment, and decided in the affirmative-yeas 109, nays 81.

The question then occurring on the amendment of Mr. MERCER, as amended by the amendment of Mr. WIL

LIAMS,

Mr. HEMPHILL inquired if it would be in order for him to offer an amendment, to supersede that now before the House.

The SPEAKER said it would not be in order; but if the House refused to agree to the amendment now under consideration, the gentleman would then have an opportunity to offer his proposition.

Mr. HEMPHILL desired that the amendment he held in his hand should be read, and it was read by the Clerk, as follows:

So the amendment as amended was rejected. The question then recurred on ordering the original bill to be engrossed for a third reading.

On this question Mr. HAYNES demanded the previous question; pending which demand,

Mr. McCOY moved an adjournment; which prevailed.
The House then adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2.

SALT SPRINGS IN ILLINOIS.

Mr. IRVIN, of Ohio, from the Committee on the Public Lands, reported a bill for the sale of lands in the State of Illinois, reserved for the use of the salt springs on Vermillion river, in that State; which was twice read.

Mr. I. moved that it be made the special order of the day for Monday next; but the motion did not prevail. Mr. I. then moved the third reading of the bill. Mr. McCOY said that the practice of the House was not what it ought to be. He was tired of hearing the "Whereas James Monroe has repeatedly memorialized many motions submitted to make bills the special order of Congress, concerning certain claims: and whereas several the day-thus giving one subject a preference over others. committees of the House of Representatives have reported He moved the commitment of the bill. favorably thereon: and whereas, from the lapse of time, Mr. IRVIN, of Ohio, explained the object of the bill. and other causes, an accurate opinion cannot be formed It provided for the sale of certain lands in Illinois, reservas to the amount, leaving a compromise as the only alter-ed for the use of salt springs. The sales of similar lands native: therefore, had taken place in Ohio and other States, for the use of "Be it enacted, &c. That, for public services, losses, those States; and he could see no good reason why the and sacrifices, the sum of thirty-six thousand dollars is same course should not be pursued towards Illinois. hereby appropriated, to be paid to James Monroe, imme- Mr. DUNCAN hoped that the gentleman from Virgi diately after the passing of this act, out of any money in nia [Mr. McCox] would not urge his motion to refer the the treasury not otherwise appropriated; which shall be bill to a committee, as such a disposition of it would be equiin full of all demands of the said James Monroe for his valent to its rejection. He said that the bill had been claims as aforesaid." reported in conformity with a memorial from the Legisla ture of the State, and he understood that the proceeds of the sale was to be applied to objects of internal improvement in the State, and the improvement of the naviga tion of the Wabash river. He said that this subject had been several times before the Committee on the Public Lands, where it had met with some opposition; but he said that committee was now unanimously in favor of the bill just reported, and he hoped the House would now pass it without further delay.

The yeas and nays were then ordered on agreeing to Mr. MERCER'S amendment as amended; and,

The question being finally put thereon, it was decided in the negative, as follows:

YEAS.-Messrs. Allen, Anderson, Angel, Armstrong, Bailey, Noyes Barber, Barringer, Baylor, James Blair, John Blair, Bockee, Boon, Cahoon, Campbell, Chandler, Chilton, Clay, Conner, Cooper, Cowles, Craig, Crane, Creighton, Davenport, Warren R. Davis, Denny, Doddridge, Earll, Ellsworth, Findlay, Finch, Ford, Fry, Mr. McCOY having withdrawn his motion, the bill was Gaither, Gordon, Green, Hall, Halsey, Hammons, Har-ordered to be engrossed for a third reading to-morrow.