JAN. 25, 1830.] Mr. DODDRIDGE would not consent. The Judiciary. Mr. BUCHANAN addressed the House. He said the measure proposed was one of great importance, and he wished to give an opportunity for members of the House to express their opinions on it freely and fully, and that their remarks might be sent to the people. He was opposed to hasty legislation on important matters; but if the gentleman from Virginia would withdraw his opposition to the second reading, he would move to postpone the consideration of the bill to Tuesday next. Such a motion, he presumed, would not be in order now. The SPEAKER--No. The Chair will read the rule of the House, for the information of gentlemen. (The SPEAKER here read the rule, as follows:] "The first reading of a bill shall be for information; and, if opposition be made to it, the question shall be, Shall this bill be rejected? If no opposition be made, or if the question to reject be negatived, the bill shall go to its second reading without a question." [H. OF R. He should not have made the objection to the second reading, but that he might subject the bill to debate, intending himself fully to discuss it. Mr. RAMSEY asked how this bill came to be reported. Was there any petition or any instruction to the committee to bring this subject now before the House? If the people of the United States do not ask us to do this thing, said he, we ought not to take it up at all. Mr. DANIEL said that the Judiciary committee had been instructed, by a special resolution, to inquire into the expediency of repealing or modifying the 25th section of the judiciary act; and, on considering the subject, they had come to the resolution that it ought to be repealed. Mr. D. had no objection to the proposed postponement for a week, by which time every member would be prepared to express his opinion upon it, he supposed. Mr. ARCHER said, if there was a majority of the House disposed to obtain a decision of this question, they Mr. DODDRIDGE now consented to withdraw his op-could, at any time, get at it by going into a Committee of position. Mr. BATES inquired whether, if the consideration of the bill was postponed to Tuesday next, it could then be considered in Committee of the Whole. The SPEAKER said, that, after the bill had been read a second time, it could go to a Committee of the Whole, or be otherwise disposed of, as the House might direct. the Whole on the state of the Union, should it be referred, as he thought it ought to be, to that committee, where it could be more freely discussed than in the House. This mode of disposing of the bill, he thought, was better suited also to the gravity and importance of the question, than the other mode proposed. Mr. MARTIN said he should not have risen again, but Mr. MARTIN said, the gentleman from Pennsylvania that the gentlemen from Virginia and Pennsylvania seemed had expressed his willingness to have a free and full dis- to think that he was disposed to avoid a decision upon the cussion of the subject, and the gentleman from Virginia bill at the present session. Mr. M. said he had no such had no desire to smother it. He [Mr. M.] had been listen- wish. But he could not but say that it was a little reing for reasons why the bill should not take the ordinary markable that a bill of this importance should be disposed course, but had heard none. The bill was one of vast importance, and ho was also in favor of a free and full discussion. He should be sorry that the bill should take a course to prevent his hearing the views of gentlemen on the subject; and he was not sure that he should not take part in a discussion himself. He did not intend now, however, to commit himself. of in a mode different from the treatment of any other bill since he had had a seat on this floor. Was this the ordinary mode in which bills were opposed? The gentleman from Virginia had said that he had made the motion to reject this bill, because it was a debatable one. But certainly all would admit that, in Committee of the Whole, the discussion would be more full, more free, Mr. BUCHANAN said he had no disposition, on this or and over a wider field. If the opinion entertained by the any other occasion, to prevent the freest discussion of the gentleman from Virginia, on this subject, was common matter before the House. It was for the purpose of as-to a majority of the House, he could at any time obtain suring himself, on the contrary, that a question should be a vote to go into committee upon it. The gentleman taken on this bill at the present session, that he had pro- shakes his head: but he can, at any time, move to go into posed its postponement to this day week. It would thus committee on the state of the Union, because such a mocome up for consideration, as business of course, on that tion has preference over any other. On the other hand, day. The bill will be, on that day, precisely in the situa- the advocates of the bill will not shrink from the investion in which it is at this moment. It will stand higher tigation of its object. They have no desire to avoid a on the calendar than it would do were we now to refer decision upon it, and will unite with its opponents in it to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. bringing it on. If, on that day, it should be thought an expedient course, Mr. WICKLIFFE said that, as one member of the the bill can then be referred to a Committee of the Whole House, he should be very much gratified to have this subon the state of the Union, as well as now. We all know ject discussed. But he wished to see the bill placed in that there are many subjects referred to the Committee of such a situation as to allow of an amendment being offered the Whole on the state of the Union, and we know that to it, for a modification of the 25th section of the old law, there is a vast mass of lumber there too. If this subject which he should prefer to a total repeal of it. Let the bill were referred to that committee, Mr. B. said, such an ex-be read a second time, said he, and then be postponed. pression of the opinion of this House upon it, as is due to When it should be again taken up, it would then be open its importance, and must be expected by the nation, would to amendment. not be obtained at the present session. tion Mr. DODDRIDGE said that he considered the mea Mr. STORRS, of New York, asked whether the ques-sure proposed by this bill to be of as much importance as upon the second reading or rejection of a bill was if it were a proposition to repeal the Union of these States; not a question open to discussion. [The SPEAKER an- and for that reason he could not, with his consent, suffer swered that it was.] If so, said Mr. S., then the gentle-it to take the course of an ordinary bill. If the House man from South Carolina, and all others, would have as should overrule the proposition of the gentleman from full opportunity as they desired to debate it, without re- Pennsylvania, Mr. D. said he should then renew opposiferring it to a Committee of the Whole. tion to the second reading of the bill. Mr. DODDRIDGE said that his objection to the second Mr. ELLSWORTH said that he should regret any reading of the bill was prompted by the same motives as delay by this House of a decision upon a question so mohad influenced the course of the gentleman from Penn-mentous as this. It was because of its overwhelming sylvania, viz. that he might have it in his power to debate magnitude that he would have it acted upon forthwith. He and decide upon this bill. He gave way only to allow of did not believe that there was a gentleman within hearing the motion for postponement, and for no other purpose. of his voice, who had, at this moment, any doubt upon H. OF R.] Judge Peck.-Duties on Iron.--Militia of the District. his own mind as to what his vote would be on this question. It seemed desirable to him, in every view, that this question should be at once decided. Mr. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, said he should vote in favor of postponement. [Here the hour for morning business expired.] By leave of the House, Mr. BUCHANAN then presented the report of the minority of the Judiciary committee against the measure proposed, and that, together with the report of the majority of the committee, were ordered to be printed. JUDGE PECK. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of citizens of the city and county of Philadelphia--mechanics, employed in various branches of the manufacture of iron, viz. steam engine makers, anchor and chain smiths, shipsmiths, machinists, founders, hardware manufacturers, edge tool makers, locksmiths, coach and wagon smiths, farriers, and blacksmiths, praying that such a modification of the existing tariff of duties on iron, as therein set forth, may be adopted; which memorial was, on motion, referred to the Committee on Manufactures. MILITIA OF THE DISTRICT. Mr. THOMPSON, of Georgia, from the Committee on the Militia, reported a bill for the better organization of the militia of the District of Columbia;" which was twice read. [JAN. 26, 1831. Committee on Manufactures was opposed to a reduction of the duties, not only upon iron, but upon every other article of import. Iron, he said, was an article of universal use and consumption; and when it was proposed to reduce the tax upon it, all the people were interested, and entitled to be heard without prejudice upon the subject. Seeing that the Committee on Manufactures had prejudg ed the case, he moved to reconsider the vote referring the petition to that committee, in order that it might be referred to the Committee of Ways and Means. I cannot Mr. RAMSEY expressed his hope that the proposition would not be reconsidered. The petition had gone to the proper committee, raised for the express purpose of taking cognizance of matters of this kind. The gentleman from North Carolina had said it was wrong to refer a memorial upon any subject to a committee that had prejudged the case. Allow me to say, said Mr. R., that the Committee of Ways and Means has as much prejudged the case as the Committee on Manufactures. consent that this petition shall take any other direction than that which has already been given to it. The Committee on Manufactures is established by rule, and appointed by the Speaker expressly to take cognizance of such questions. The Committee of Ways and Means is established and appointed to devise the ways and means of bringing money into the treasury; and I have always thought it not the proper committee to send questions of this kind to. The Committee of Ways and Means ought not to take cognizance of such matters, unless specially sent to them; and, when so sent, they ought to move to be discharged from them, as not being within their province. Mr. McDUFFIE (chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means) said that, in reference to the matter of prejudging the question, the two committees referred to were upon precisely the same footing. It was well known, he said, that the Committee of Ways and Means take one view of this subject, the Committee on ManuMr. THOMPSON then said that this bill was, he be- factures another. He understood the object of the holieved, of an unexceptionable nature, and its provisions norable mover, however, to be, that the matter of the were much needed by the people of this District. Among petition should be fairly investigated. He understood, other things, it proposes to authorize the Secretary of moreover, that one of the petitioners, perhaps one of the War to select places of depot for the preservation of the most intelligent practical mechanics in the United States, arms of the United States, placed in the hands of the is now here, with materials and evidence prepared to susmilitia, and to employ persons to take care of the same; tain his views before any committee to whom the memobut for these purposes it proposes no direct appropriation, rial should be referred. All that Mr. McD. desired to though probably some expense might be the consequence. understand, therefore, was, whether the Committee on Under these circumstances, Mr. T. inquired of the Speak-Manufactures would give a fair hearing to the memorialer whether the rules of the House would require that the ists. If they would, he had no objection to the subject bill should go through a Committee of the Whole. [The going to that committee. SPEAKER answered in the negative.] It was considered Mr. MALLARY (chairman of the Committee on Maso important that something should be done on this sub-nufactures) referred to the rules of the House for the ject, Mr. T. said, that he wished to have the bill go to a appointing of committees, and the specification of their third reading without delay. The bill of the last session duties. He remarked, however, that, when particular on this subject contained some provisions which gave subjects were referred to committees, they might be in some little disquietude to some of the citizens. favor of a part of them, and have strong objections to vention of officers of the militia had, however, examined other portions. The Speaker, in the appointment of this bill, and some alterations had been made, but he committees, could not always know the sentiments of memthought not material ones, which made the bill more bers, nor could he tell to what particular decision they acceptable to the people. He moved that the bill be would come on the matters referred to their consideraengrossed, and ordered to be read a third time. tion. The question seemed to be, what was the proper A con After a suggestion from the Chair, Mr. T. waived his duties to be performed by the Committee on Manufacmotion, and the bill was made the special order of the day tures. He [Mr. M.] was not disposed to prejudge the for Monday next, when the question will be upon order-present case; he would say, nevertheless, that all matters ing it to be engrossed. DUTIES ON IRON. Mr. SPEIGHT, of North Carolina, adverting to a memorial against the duty on iron, which had been this morning referred to the Committee on Manufactures, and alluding to the right of the people to petition this House, implying a right to a hearing upon their petition, said, that it was a well-known fact that a large proportion of the referred to the committee of which he had the honor to JAN. 27, 1831.] Compensation of Members.-Judge Peck. THURSDAY, JANUARY 27. [H. OF R. the House was disposed to act upon the subject, it would do so without considering whether any proposition con- COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. cerning it came from one committee or another. For himself, he was opposed to the measure proposed, by The House then resumed the consideration of the joint whatever committee it might be recommended; and he resolution "relative to the pay of members of Congress," still continued to think that the Committee on Manufac-together with the motion to recommit the resolution to tures was the committee to which it had been properly the Committee on Public Expenditures, with certain inreferred. structions. Mr. CAMBRELENG, of New York, said, after the de- The yeas and nays were yesterday called for by Mr. claration made by the gentleman at the head of the Com-HOFFMAN, on the question; but this day the House refusmittee on Manufactures, that the subject would be fully led to order them. investigated before that committee, he hoped the gen- After some discussion, the previous question was detleman from North Carolina would withdraw his motion. [manded, and the demand was sustained by the House. This, Mr. C. said, was one of the most important sub-[The effect of the previous question was to supersede jects ever presented to this House; and a proper investi- the motion for recommitment with instructions, and bring gation into it would show how imperfect is this tariff of the question directly before the House on the passage of ours, which had been said to be one of the most perfect the joint resolution.] in the world. These petitioners tell you that they are taxed twice the value of their manufacture, and that they must be prostrated unless they get some relief from you. It is thus seen how important is this inquiry. The main question being put in the following form: Shall the joint resolution pass?" it was determined in the affirmative, as follows: YEAS.--Messrs. Alexander, Allen, Alston, Anderson, Mr. HUNTINGTON, of Connecticut, said that this was Angel, Armstrong, Arnold, Noyes Barber, Barnwell, not the time to determine whether the complaint of the Bartley, Bates, Baylor, Beekman, J. Blair, Bockee, Boon, memorialists be or be not well founded. But it would be Borst, Bouldin, Brodhead, Brown, Burges, Butman, Carecollected that at the commencement of the session this hoon, Cambreleng, Campbell, Carson, Chandler, Chilwhole subject had been referred to the standing Commit-ton, Claiborne, Clay, Condict, Conner, Cooper, Cowles, tee on Manufactures, from whom the effect of the pro- Craig, Crane, Crawford, Crockett, Creighton, Crocheposed reference to another committee would be to take ron, Daniel, Davenport, W. R. Davis, Deberry, Denny, it away. This, he thought, was not a usual if a deco-Desha, De Witt, Dickinson, Doddridge, Dorsey, Drarous procedure. The subject would, he had no doubt, per, Drayton, Duncan, Dwight, Eager, Earll, Ellsworth, receive, before the standing committee, a full and fair G. Evans, Horace Everett, Findlay, Finch, Ford, Forward, investigation. Foster, Fry, Gordon, Green, Hall, Hammons, Harvey, Mr. J. S. BARBOUR, of Virginia, (one of the mem-Hawkins, Haynes, Hodges, Holland, Hoffman, Hubbard, bers of the Committee on Manufactures,) took this occa- Hunt, Huntington, Ihrie, Ingersoll, Thomas Irwin, Jarsion to say that, as was known to the House, a report had vis, R. M. Johnson, Cave Johnson, Kendall, Kennon, been made from that committee, and a counter report had Kincaid, Perkins King, Lamar, Lea, Leavitt, Lecompte, been presented by the minority. With the greatest re- Lent, Letcher, Loyall, Lumpkin, Lyon, Magee, Mallary, spect for the gentlemen composing these two divisions of Martindale, Martin, Thomas Maxwell, Lewis Maxwell, the committee, he begged leave here to say that he dis-McCreery, McCoy, Mercer, Mitchell, Monell, Muhlensented both from the majority and the minority. Mr. SPEIGHT then rose, and, in consequence of what had fallen from the members of the Committee on Manufactures, withdrew his motion for reconsideration. COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS. The House then resumed the consideration of the joint resolution "relative to the pay of members of Congress;" together with the instructions proposed to be sent to the Committee on Public Expenditures when that resolution was last under consideration. Mr. SUTHERLAND said a few words in explanation of what had fallen from him on a preceding day; when Mr. HALL proposed a modification of the instructions, by adding to them a proviso that the bill, as proposed, should not have a retroactive operation. Mr. HOFFMAN was opposed to the recommitment of the resolution, and called for the yeas and nays on the question. berg, Nuckolls, Overton, Pettis, Polk, Potter, Powers, NAYS.-Messrs. John S. Barbour, Coleman, Crowninshield, Edward Everett, Gaither, Gorham, Grennell, Gurley, Hinds, Hughes, Leiper, Miller, Norton, Patton, Pierson, Rose, Sprigg, Henry R. Storrs, Sutherland, Vinton, Edward D. White.-21. So the resolution was passed, and sent to the Senate for concurrence, in the following form: "Resolved by the Senate and louse of Representatives, That the rules of each House shall be so amended as that it shall be the imperative duty of the Secretary of the Senate and Sergeant-at-arms of the House of Representatives to ascertain, at the end of every session of Congress, from each member of Congress, or delegate from a terri [Here the hour for morning business expired.] On motion of Mr. SPENCER, of New York, three thousand additional copies of the report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the subject of the cultivation of sugar cane, and the manufacture of brown sugar, recently trans-tory, the number of days which he may have been absent mitted to Congress, were ordered to be printed. JUDGE PECK. from, and, not in attendance upon, the business of the House; and in settling the accounts of the Senators, mem|bers, and delegates, there shall be deducted from the The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the account, or amount of pay for each session, at the rate of Whole, Mr. MARTIN in the chair, and proceeded to at-eight dollars per day for every day any member of either tend the trial before the high court of impeachment. Having returned, the committee reported progress; and The House adjourned. House, or delegate, shall have been absent, except by order, on business of the House to which he belongs, or in consequence of sickness." H. or R.] Lands between Ludlow and Roberts' lines.—Surplus Revenue.-Expenses of Impeachment. [JAN. 28, 1831. LANDS BETWEEN LUDLOW & ROBERTS' LINES. of the Committee on the Judiciary, relative to repealing which motion lies one day. the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary law of 1789; The House then, on motion of Mr. STERIGERE, went into Committee of the Whole, Mr. HowARD in the chair, and took up the bill from the Senate, to "amend an act to quiet the title of certain purchasers of lands between the lines of Ludlow and Roberts, in the State of Ohio," together with certain amendments proposed by the Committee on Private Land Claims. This subject has been long before Congress, and the debate on the merits of the case repeatedly published in the Intelligencer. General McArthur and Philip Doddridge, as agents for others, were the owners of certain lands between the lines of Ludlow and Roberts, in the THE JUDICIARY. Mr. LECOMPTE submitted the following: structed to inquire into the expediency of amending the Mr. VANCE called for the yeas and nays on the question. They were ordered by the House, and, being taken, stood as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Alexander, Allen, Alston, Angel, Baylor, Bell, James Blair, John Blair, Boon, Cambreleng, ron, Warren R. Davis, Desha, De Witt, Earll, Findlay, State of Ohio. These lands had been sold to other individuals by the United States, believing them to be a part of the national domain, and the proceeds were paid into the treasury. Under this state of things, Doddridge had commenced suit against the purchasers, and the United States made themselves defendants in the case. In the Supreme Court, a decision was made in favor of Dod- Carson, Chandler, Chilton, Claiborne, Conner, Crochedridge. After that decision, Congress passed an act for the survey of the lands, and authorizing the appointment of commissioners to appraise their value. When their report was made, the President of the United States was authorized to treat with McArthur and Doddridge for a settlement of their claims, in order to quiet the titles of those who had purchased from the United States. McArthur agreed to receive for his lands the valuation fixed by the appraisers. Doddridge demanded the same sum, with interest, that had been paid into the treasury. An act had passed Congress, at the last session, appropriating a sum of money for quieting these titles; and the bill at present reported was to make a further appropriation, to the use of Mr. Doddridge, for one of the surveys, which he had already ceded to the United States, but for which the act before named did not make sufficient compensation.] A debate of some duration took place between Messrs. STERIGERE, MCCOY, WICKLIFFE, VINTON, and PETTIS. It consisted chiefly, however, of explanations, and a statement of the principles on which the bill before the House was founded. Mr. STERIGERE moved that the proposed amendments be rejected. Mr. TREZVANT had risen to speak, when A message was received from the Senate. The SPEAKER immediately took the chair, and the Secretary of the Senate announced that that body was now sitting as a high court of impeachment. JUDGE PECK. The House then went into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. MARTIN in the chair, and proceeded to the Senate chamber, to attend the high court of impeachment sitting for the trial of Judge Peck. Having returned, and reported progress, The House again resumed, in Committee of the Whole, the bill which was before that committee in the morning relative to lands between Ludlow and Roberts' lines: with out continuing the debate, the committee rose, and reported progress, and had leave to sit again. NAYS.-Messrs. Anderson, Archer, Armstrong, Arnold, Noyes Barber, John S. Barbour, Barnwell, Barriner, Bartley, Beekman, Bouldin, Brodhead, Brown, Burges, Butman, Cahoon, Clay, Condict, Cooper, Coulter, Cowles, Craig, Crane, Crawford, Crockett, Creighton, Crowninshieid, Davenport, John Davis, Deberry, Denny, Doddridge, Dorsey, Draper, Drayton, Duncan, Edward Everett, Horace Everett, Finch, Forward, GilDwight, Eager, Ellsworth, George Evans, Joshua Evans, more, Gorham, Green, Grennell, Hemphill, Hodges, Holland, Hoffman, Howard, Hughes, Hunt, Huntington, hrie, Ingersoll, Johns, Kendall, Kennon, Kincaid, Leiper, Lent, Loyall, Mallary, Martindale, Martin, Thomas Maxwell, Lewis Maxwell, McDuffie, McIntire, Mitchell, Monell, Muhlenberg, Norton, Patton, Pearce, Pierson, Polk, Ramsey, Reed, Rose, Russel, Sanford, Wm. B. Shepard, Aug. H. Shepperd, Sill, Smith, Speight, Ambrose SpenStorrs, Strong, Sutherland, Swann, Swift, Taylor, Test, cer, Richard Spencer, Stanbery, H. R. Storrs, W. L Trezvant, Vance, Varnum, Verplanck, Vinton, Washing ton, Whittlesey, C. P. White, E. D. White, Wilde, Williams, Wilson, Wingate, Young.-115. So the House refused to consider the resolution. EXPENSES OF THE IMPEACHMENT. Mr. ELLSWORTH stated that the witnesses attending on the trial of Judge Peck could not be discharged until they were paid. It was highly necessary, therefore, that the House should act upon the bill which he had reported this morning; and he moved to suspend the consideration of any other business on the table, for the purpose of taking up the bill to which he referred.. The motion was agreed to, and the House went into Committee of the Whole, Mr. DWIGHT in the chair, and took up the bill "making provision for the compen sation of the witnesses, and other expenses attending the trial of Judge Peck," together with the amendments reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. [The gross sum proposed to be appropriated by the Senate's bill, amounted to $12,000; by the proposed amendments, that amount was increased to $13,500.] Mr. POLK said, the bill provided for the compensation and the respondent. In all State prosecutions, the defend of the witnesses, both on the part of the United States ant always paid his own witnesses, and he thought the JAN. 29, 1831.] Lands between Ludlow and Roberts' lines.--Judge Peck.--The Judiciary.-Brown Sugar. [H. of R. United States would do enough to compensate the witnesses on the part of the prosecution. He requested information as to what had been the usage in former cases of impeachment under this Government. Mr. ELLSWORTH replied that, in the case of Judge Chase, the United States had paid the witnesses on both sides. He was not positive as to the other cases. He would remark, that it would tend to the utter ruin of any individual brought before the Senate of the United States for trial, if he were to be compelled to compensate his own witnesses. It was right and proper that the Government should pay all the witnesses attending trials of impeachments; and whether Judge Peck should or should not be cleared, it was obvious that, if he were to be compelled to pay his witnesses, he was a ruined man. Mr. CARSON was in favor of the bill as proposed to be amended. He remarked, that if a precedent was now established, that the United States were not to pay witnesses on behalf of the persons accused in trials of impeachment, no future prosecution would take place, however aggravated might be the offence committed. No man would undertake it. There was no analogy between the ordinary trials in the States and a trial in the Senate of the United States. In the latter, witnesses had gene rally to be brought from a distance, often very great, as in the present case, and their detention here was both long and expensive. What possible chance was there, he would ask, that an individual could clear himself of an alleged crime, if he was obliged to pay his own witnesses? No man could clear himself, for no man could afford the expense. In his opinion, for the United States to refuse to pay witnesses in trials of the kind referred to, would amount to a positive denial of justice, &c. The question was now demanded; and, being put on the amendments offered by the Judiciary committee, they were agreed to. The demand was sustained by the House-yeas 81, nays 69. The question was then put, "Shall the main question be now put? And it was determined in the affirmative-yeas 75, nays 68. Mr. CRAWFORD moved for a call of the House-which motion prevailed; when it was ascertained that there were one hundred and seventy-one members present. Mr. MERCER then moved to dispense with further proceedings in the call; but the motion was negatived. The names of absentees on the first call were then called over a second time. Several of them answered to their names, and excuses were made for others; one hundred and eighty-three members were now ascertained to be present. The doors were then closed; when, On motion of Mr. DWIGHT, further proceedings in the call were suspended. The main question was then put, viz. "Shall the bill be rejected?" And it was determined in the affirmative, as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Arnold, Bailey, Noyes Barber, John S. Barbour, Barringer, Bartley, Bates, Baylor, Beekman, John Blair, Bockee, Boon, Borst, Brodhead, Brown, Buchanan, Burges, Butman, Cahoon, Chilton, Clark, Condict, Cooper, Coulter, Cowles, Craig, Crane, Crawford, Crockett, Creighton, Crocheron, Crowninshield, John Davis, Deberry, Denny, De Witt, Dickinson, Doddridge, Dorsey, Drayton, Dwight, Eager, Earll, Ellsworth, G. Evans, Joshua Evans, Edward Everett, Findlay, Finch, Forward, Fry, Gilmore, Gorham, Green, Grennell, Gurley, Halsey, Hemphill, Hodges, Holland, Hoffman, Howard, Hubbard, Hughes, Hunt, Huntington, Ihrie, Ingersoll, Thomas Irwin, William W. Irvin, Johns, Cave Johnson, Kendall, Kennon, Kincaid, Perkins King, The committee then rose, and reported the bill as Adam King, Leavitt, Leiper, Lent, Letcher, Magee, amended; the amendments were agreed to, and the bill Mallary, Martindale, Lewis Maxwell, McCreery, McDufordered to be read a third time to-morrow. fie, McIntire, Mercer, Miller, Mitchell, Monell, MuhlenLANDS BETWEEN LUDLOW & ROBERTS' LINES. berg, Norton, Pearce, Pierson, Powers, Reed, RichardThe House then resumed, in Committee of the Whole, son, Rose, Russel, Sanford, Scott, William B. Shepard, the bill "to amend the act to quiet the title of purchasers Augustine H. Shepperd, Shields, Sill, Speight, Ambrose, of the public lands between the lines of Ludlow and Ro. Spencer, Richard Spencer, Sprigg, Standefer, Sterigere, berts, in the State of Ohio," Mr. HOWARD in the chair. Henry R. Storrs, William L. Storrs, Strong, Sutherland, Some further conversation took place between Messrs. Swann, Swift, Taylor, Test, J. Thomson, Vance, VarTREZVANT, WICKLIFFE, and VINTON, when theum, Verplanck, Vinton, Washington, Weeks, Whittleamendments proposed by the Committee on Private Land Sey, C. P. White, Edward D. White, Williams, Wilson, Wingate, Young.-138. Claims were disagreed to, and the committee rose, and reported the bill to the House. The House concurred with the Committee of the Whole in rejecting the proposed amendments, and the bill was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow. JUDGE PECK. The hour of 12 having arrived, the House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. MARTIN in the chair, and proceeded to the Senate, to attend, before the high court of impeachment, the trial of Judge Peck. Having returned, and reported progress, The House adjourned. SATURDAY, JANUARY 29. THE JUDICIARY. The bill to repeal the 25th section of the judiciary act, passed on the 4th September, 1789, coming up as the first business of the morning, the question being on the motion of Mr. BUCHANAN to postpone the motion that the bill be read a second time to Tuesday next Mr. CRAWFORD rose, and, after a few remarks, demanded the previous question; which was the motion of Mr. DODDRIDGE that the bill be rejected. NÄYS.--Messrs. Alexander, Allen, Alston, Angel, Barnwell, Bell, James Blair, Bouldin, Cambreleng, Campbell, Chandler, Claiborne, Clay, Coleman, Conner, Daniel, Davenport, W. R. Davis, Desha, Draper, Foster, Gaither, Gordon, Hall, Harvey, Haynes, Hinds, Jarvis, Richard M. Johnson, Lamar, Lecompte, Lewis, Loyall, Lumpkin, Lyon, Martin, Thomas Maxwell, McCoy, Nuckolls, Overton, Patton, Pettis, Polk, Potter, Roane, Wiley Thompson, Trezvant, Tucker, Wickliffe, Wilde, Yancey.--51. So the bill was rejected. BROWN SUGAR. The House then resumed the consideration of the resolution submitted by Mr. HAYNES Some days since, relative to brown sugar. Mr. WHITE, of Louisiana, said, that, when this subject before came up in order, it was laid over for a specific object. I myself, said Mr. W., moved its postponement, as well from my own conviction of the propriety of the step, as at the instance and suggestion of some other gentlemen. The object alluded to was, to let in a report on the subject, which we were daily expecting to receive from the Treasury Department, in compliance with a call from this House. That report, sir, has since been sent |