FEB. 9, 1831.]

Minister to Russia.

[H. or R.

was to obstruct the employment of the same means for its strongest form should be acceded to. The appropriaaccomplishing the same purpose in every case of diversi- tion, however, could only be denied under this extent of ty of opinion from the Executive? And, if this might be responsibility; for the Executive could not be bound to done, what became of the substantial and real, though not understand, in the refusal of an appropriation, that nonominal, office, of "appointing ambassadors, other pub- thing more was involved than objection to a particular lic ministers, and consuls?" Would it belong to the Exe- minister, and a design to get rid of him, not the assertion of cutive, to which it had been confided by the constitution any principle of policy; nor would there be any constiexpressly, or to the House, from which it had been withheld? tutional obligation to respect this objection, if it were unThe question on this part of the subject went beyond derstood. the point of the House, exerting an indirect control over So much for the ground of the motion resting on the the appointment of ministers. It might be pushed to the unfitness of the appointment of Mr. Randolph. This had point whither the control might be exerted even over been the main ground-the topic most insisted on in the the missions themselves. It might be said that the right, early stage of the debate. The gentleman from Rhode on the part of the Executive and Senate, to depute di-Island, however, who figured so conspicuously in the displomatic agents, gave an exclusive discretion as regarded cussion, [Mr. BURGES,] on the last day he had addressed the whole subject of the fitness of missions, as well as the House, had introduced another topic, which much ministers, and that the House was bound to give effect to enlarged the scope of his attack. He now rested princithis discretion when the exercise of its power of appro-pally on a doctrine which might be regarded as extraordipriation was demanded for the purpose. Without in-nary even for this anomalous debate. He insisted that tending, Mr. A. said, to intimate any concurrence of his the motion ought to be sustained, on account of the misown opinion with this doctrine, he must be permitted to sion being an illegal one; alleging, very truly, that we observe, that it stood on stronger ground in this than the were not bound to appropriate for an illegal mission. The related case of treaties, in which it had been the subject first impression produced by this suggestion, Mr. A. said, of so much debate at different times. It had been held was, that as it could not be intended, so it ought not to be by a very large class of our politicians, that as the treaty-treated seriously. The fact must not be allowed to escape making power rested with the Executive and Senate, the from memory, however, that this discussion was peculiar obligation to give effect to the clearly expressed admitted and out of rule in its policy as well as conduct. Things functions of the other departments forbade the denial of must be in it, which in a common debate might be passed appropriations for the execution of treaty stipulations.by. The adroitness and undisputed talents of the honorOn the other hand, the subjects on which the provisions able gentleman from Rhode Island might give a color to of treaties could be made to operate, belonging, in nearly his strange proposition, rendering it specious to persons the whole mass of cases, to the concurrent jurisdiction of not familiar with this class of subjects.

Congress generally, with the treaty-making power, it The gentleman had professed his ability to sustain it by might with reason be contended that the discretion of authorities of public law. He had said he had them with Congress, though controlled, was not extinguished by the him in the House. His exhaustion from bad health had exercise of the correlative authority by the President and not, however, permitted him to read, or even to refer to Senate. But, in the present case, of the power of the them by titles. Those who followed in the debate must, Executive and Senate to send missions, there was no pre- therefore, be exposed to some difficulty in encountering tence of a concurrence of jurisdiction, from which the in- the allegation. The general proposition from which the ference of a right to exercise a check on this function could gentleman started, was too elementary to require confir be assumed. The case, therefore, Mr. A. repeated, was mation from authority. He stated truly that legations of stronger in favor of the doctrine that the House was ex- embassy of every class being institutions of the law of cluded from discretion as regarded the denial of appro- nations, must conform in their modes and conduct to the priations in this case of missions, than in the case of trea- requirements of this law to be valid, so as to draw after ties. He did not mean to profess his concurrence with them the immunities which it attached. No proposition the doctrine in either case. He believed, however, that, could be less contestable. The room for its application, in either case, the abuse of discretion on the part of the not its correctness, constituted the difficulty. It was ad Executive and Senate should be extreme, to authorize mitted freely, that the mission in this instance must be the interposal of our restraining and protective jurisdic- consonant in its character and form with the requisitions tion. That we were competent to the exertion of such of public law, to be valid; and that, if not valid, we stood an office, he did not doubt. But that its proper and le- dispensed from any obligation to make provision for it. gitimate character was protective only, and that any ex-In what respect, then, was it wanting in this conformity? tension beyond this character would be an abuse, was as little to be doubted. The protective authority, too, was over the mission. It could not be legitimately pushed to a surveillance on the President and Senate, as regarded the fitness of their selections; unless, indeed, the abuse of their discretion, in this respect, was so flagrant or continued as to bring the case within the operation of the principle stated, and to justify the putting down the mission itself, as rendered mischievous or abortive. Then Now, it must be observed, that though it had been true the rightful control over the mission-over the conti- that Mr. Randolph had been guilty of irregularity of connuance of the relations in which the appointment of the duct to the full extent charged on him, still, on the prin minister was founded, might produce the annulment of ciple assumed, the proposition would not be sustained the appointment incidentally, which, as a purpose sought that the mission stood vacated. It was the irregularity of directly and independently, would certainly be unautho- the permission which was fraught with this effect, and the rized. Whilst, then, the House would not be justified in effect must attach if the principle were well founded, denying or limiting the appropriation in this case, for the though no practical irregularity had followed. It would mere purpose of getting at the dismission of Mr. Ran- not be sufficient that Mr. Randolph had really established dolph, if it thought that his appointment was of such a his domicile in England, not Russia, if this had been done character as to frustrate all beneficial purpose in keeping in abuse, and not in pursuance, of his permission. This open diplomatic relations with Russia, undoubtedly duty would constitute a case demanding a recall on the termiwould require, as well as right permit, that the motion in nation of his mission, but not operating its defeasance, ab Vol. VII.-43

The nomination had been made and confirmed in pursuance of the usual forms. This much was not disputed. The appointment was alleged, however, to have been accompanied with a condition, which operated as a clause of defeasance, vacating the mission by incongruity. And what was this? It was found in the permission which had been granted to Mr. Randolph to absent himself from St. Petersburg.

H. OF R.]

Minister to Russia.

[FEB. 9, 1831.

initio, or from the time of the grant of the unlawful and within the principle of this usage; yet he would be situatannulling condition, which was the principle contended ed more inconveniently than at London, where he now for. It was from the extent of the permission, then, that was, for the purposes of his mission. the measure of legality of the mission was to be taken. Permissions of the character of that granted to Mr. Where were we to look for this extent? The exclusive Randolph, and absences (under them, of longer duration source of our knowledge on this subject, as regarded the than his had been, were in the most ordinary course of diexistence as well as extent of the permission, was in the plomatic transactions. The occasions were various--for message of the President, disclosing it. What did this attention to personal affairs, for health, for recreation. say? That the President regretted to inform the House Leave was not, necessarily, requisite, so much was this that our minister lately commissioned, &c. had "been mode of proceeding in the common course. Mr. Adams, compelled, by extreme indisposition, to exercise a privi- the elder, and Mr. Jefferson, when our ministers at the lege which, in consideration of the extent to which his courts of St. James's and Versailles, passed and repassed, constitution had been impaired in the public service, was as occasion demanded, at will, between London, Paris, committed to his discretion-of leaving, temporarily, his and the Hague. Mr. Jefferson made two excursions of post for the advantage of a more genial climate." The recreation, or rather of instruction, (for with him time assertion of the avoidance of the legality of the mission was in no way allowed to pass unprofitably,) the one into by this privilege could only be made in the view of its Germany; the other, as well as he [Mr. A.] recollected, authorizing the residence of Mr. Randolph elsewhere than into Italy. No leave appears to have been deemed requi in Russia. We knew the extent of the concession, only site, as the absences were short. If Mr. Randolph, findfrom the message, and from this we learned that the allowing himself so much out of health as to demand a change ance of absence was contingent only; and to be confined of climate, had absented himself without leave, no claby the duration of the exigency, in which the resort to it mor would probably have followed. It was the leave had been authorized. How different from the assump. obtained in anticipation of the casualty, which was made tion which the argument for the invalidity of the appoint- the occasion of clamor. Yet a precedent equally in point, ment required. of which the gentleman from Rhode Island did not ap This argument was as little founded in principle, as in pear to be aware, was furnished, at a period to which the the application which had been attempted of it. The gentleman would not be prone to state exception. In the real principle on the subject was, that a minister once re-administration of Mr. Monroe, when the Department of ceived, the regularity of his residence at the court to State was in the charge of Mr. Adams, Mr. Forsyth rewhich he was deputed was a question for his own Go-ceived, cotemporaneously with his appointment, and car vernment. If an irregular residence should be regarded ried out with him, a permission to return home, immedi by the Government receiving him in the light of disre- ately on the exchange of the ratifications of the treaty spect, it would be a fair subject of representation in that which had just been signed, and the ratifications of view to his own Government, and that was the worst result which were expected to have been exchanged imme with which it could be attended.

diately. Owing to delay in this event, Mr. Forsyth was If an irregular residence was attended with the effects prevented from availing himself of the permission as early which had been ascribed to it, in this instance, what be- as he had designed. But he did avail himself of it, by recame of the case, not of unfrequent occurrence, of resi- turning to this country for his family, where he remained dent ministers sent on another service of indefinite duration? six months. Who had thought of making this matter of This had frequently occurred with our own ministers. imputation, or that the salary of Mr. Forsyth ought to Did they lose their caste, suffer impairment of their have been curtailed on this account? In the administra immunities, or require new credentials or reception on tion of Mr. Adams, one of our diplomatic functionaries their return? What, in the same view, became of the remained at home several months, not less than six, after cases in which the same minister might be accredited to the acceptance of his appointment, waiting a return of a more courts than one at the same time? There was no-season of health in the country of his destination. The thing in principle to forbid this, and there might be a great salary was received from the time of his acceptance, yet deal of inconvenience to demand it. If one minister would no clamor was awakened, as we have heard in the case of be sufficient for our occasions with all Europe, why Mr. Randolph.

Mr.

should we have more? Yet, irregular residence would The gentleman from Rhode Island, [Mr. BURGES,] by be unavoidable: where several small courts were contigu- way of fortifying his proposition, that Mr. Randolph's ap ous, an arrangement of this kind might be of the highest pointment had become invalid, insisted that he was divestconvenience. Suppose our own confederacy disjoined, ed of his diplomatic privileges in his present situation. must foreign Governments be compelled to support a These privileges, he [Mr. B.] maintained, could attach nodiplomatic agent at each, or to have no diplomatic rela- where but in the country to which the minister was sent. tions with those at which no agent was maintained? Or, The proposition, if just, was not material in the discusmight the arrangement be resorted to, which was now sion. But it was not just. Mr. Randolph did not stand sometimes employed for consuls, of employing, if need divested of his privileges. These privileges did not be, the same for more States than one? Convenience attach only in the country to which he was sent. usually demanded constant residence near the seat of Randolph possessed in his present sojournment the perGovernment of the Power to which the minister was ac-sonal inviolability on which the gentleman had dilated 50 credited; and absence from the country, unless on special much. A minister furnishing evidence, by passport, either occasions, or for brief periods, would of course be absurd by surety, &c. of his public character, not by courtesy as subversion of the purposes of the mission. But there merely, but the universal usage which made the law of was no rigorous principle in this respect: convenience nations, had extended to him, in countries in which he governed usage. In our own country, it had been a good made transient sojournment, the same assurance of per deal the practice of the foreign ministers, and was at this sonal inviolability, that he would be entitled to rigorously, time, to reside elsewhere than at Washington. There in the country to which he was accredited. He had more had been instances in which, if he [Mr. A.] was not mis- than this by the modern usages. He would be exempted taken, the visit had not been paid to the seat of Govern- from the operation of quarantine or blockade. And he ment for years, or, in any event, had been paid very rare- [Mr. A.] would venture to affirm, that the effects of Mr. ly. Yet this practice furnished no occasion of discontent. Randolph in entering England (as they would in depart It would be disused, undoubtedly, if it did. If Mr. Ran-ing) had been exempt from all search or duty. If diplo dolph were to fix his residence at Moscow, he would fall matic immunities were only of force in the country to

FEB. 10, 1831.]

Insolvent Debtors.—Internal Improvements.

which the functionary was accredited, where would be the safety for ministers in the transit to and from the places of their destination? And, if this security were wanting, how could intercourse and relations of diplomacy subsist with interior nations; that is to say, such as, not being accessible by sea, could only be reached through the territories of others? It was in early and barbarous times only, that the principle by which the security was guarantied had not been recognised. It was not true, as the gentleman from Rhode Island had supposed, that the murder of the French envoys, in the time of the Emperor Charles V, supposed to be by his instigation, was not regarded as a breach of the law of nations. Vattel calls it expressly an atrocious violation. Nor is it any evidence to the contrary, that, owing to the disjointed condition of the times, and the ascendant influence of Charles, the indignation of Europe was only partially expressed. This view of the subject Mr. A. repeated, however, had no material relation to the subject. He should, therefore, pass it by, with some other remarks of the gentleman which he had noted for observation.

[H. of R.

Storrs, W. L. Storrs, Strong, Swann, Swift, Taylor,
Test, Vance, Vinton, Washington, Whittlesey, Edward
D. White, Williams, Young.-70.

The main question (on the third reading of the bill) was accordingly put, and carried without a division, and the bill was then, on motion of Mr. VERPLANCK, read a third time.

Mr. CONNER called for the yeas and nays on the passage of the bill, and they were ordered by the House. Mr. WICKLIFFE moved a call of the House. The motion was negatived.

Mr. CHILTON rose to remark that the bill contained a feature exceptionable in the extreme. He would, how. ever, vote for the bill; and he presumed other gentle men would do the same, as it was the general appropri ation bill.

Mr. BATES, after a few remarks, moved the recommitment of the bill to the Committee of Ways and Means, with instructions to strike out the word Russia from the 349th line of the bill, and to provide, at the end of the paragraph, for the salary of a minister to Russia. On this motion Mr. B. demanded the yeas and nays, and they were ordered.

On review of the grounds assigned for the motion, they had appeared in every respect inadequate, even if they had been sustainable in fact. Had the spirit of party Mr. STERIGERE demanded the previous question; mingled, then, in this proceeding? This spirit was prone and the demand was sustained by the House.

to run into excess, when not kept in restraint by the con- Mr. BATES then called for the yeas and nays on the trolling influence of public opinion, to which appeal was motion for the main question; but the House refused to made in the present instance. To the result of that ap-order them.

peal, he was willing, Mr. A. said, to submit the decision The House having determined that the main question on the motion; not doubting that, as it would meet rejec-should now be put,

tion in the House, it was equally destined to encounter The question was finally taken on the passage of the the sentence yet more severe, and to which we were dispos- bill, and decided in the affirmative, by yeas and nays-ed to pay higher respect-the censure of our constituents. yeas 115, nays 3.

Mr. TUCKER then, after a few remarks against spending further time on this subject, to the injury of the other public business, moved the previous question.

The motion being seconded, 73 to 33

Mr. CONNER moved a call of the House, but the motion was negatived.

The question was then put on the previous question, viz. "Shall the main question be now put?" and was decided in the affirmative, by yeas and nays, as follows:

So the bill was passed, and sent to the Senate.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS.

It was now half past four o'clock, and the House was about to adjourn; when

Whole, Mr. DWIGHT in the chair, and took up the bill.
propriating five thousand dollars to carry the provisions
Mr. BUCHANAN submitted an additional section, ap
of the bill into effect; which was agreed to.
mittee then rose, and reported the bill as amended; and
The House adjourned.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the

The com

Mr. BUCHANAN rose, and said that he was about to last he should ever ask of it. It was to indulge him so ask a favor of the House, which would probably be the much as to go into Committee of the Whole on the state YEAS.--Messrs. Alexander, Alston, Anderson, Arm-tain insolvent debtors of the United States. He had had of the Union, and to take up the bill for the relief of cerstrong, Barringer, Baylor, Jas. Blair, Bockee, Boon, Borst, the bill in charge for two years, and during all that time Bouldin, Brodhead, Brown, Buchanan, Chandler, Clai-the parties interested had, with excited feelings, been borne, Clay, Coleman, Conner, Craig, Crawford, Crocheron, Daniel, Davenport, W. R. Davis, Deberry, Denny, which Mr. B. made a feeling appeal to the House, in looking for its passage. After a few other remarks, in Desha, De Witt, Dorsey, Draper, Duncan, Dwight, favor of taking up the bill, Earll, Joshua Evans, Findlay, Ford, Fry, Gilmore, Gordon, Green, Hall, Halsey, Hammons, Harvey, Hemphill, Hinds, Holland, Hoffman, Howard, Hubbard, Ihrie, William W. Irvin, Richard M. Johnson, Cave Johnson, Kennon, Perkins King, Adam King, Lamar, Lecompte, Lent, Lewis, Loyall, Lumpkin, Lyon, Magee, Marr, Martin, T. Maxwell, Lewis Maxwell, McCreery, McCoy, McIntire, Mitchell, Monell, Overton, Patton, Pettis, Polk, Potter, Ramsey, Rencher, Roane, Russel, Sanford, Scott, Wm. B. Shepard, Aug. H. Shepperd, Shields, Sill, Smith, Speight, Ambrose Spencer, Richard Spencer, Sprigg, Stande fer, Stephens, Sutherland, Wiley Mr. HEMPHILL, from the Committee on Internal ImThompson, John Thomson, Trezvant, Tucker, Varnum, provements, to which was referred so much of the mesVerplanck, Wayne, Weeks, Campbell P. White, Wick-sage of the President of the United States at the comliffe, Wilde, Wilson, Yancey.-112. mencement of the present session as relates to that subject, NAYS.-Messrs. Angel, Archer, Arnold, Bailey, Barn- made a report thereon, and moved that it be committed well, Bates, Beekman, Campbell, Childs, Chilton, Clark, Condict, Cooper,| Bell, Cahoon, Cambreleng, and printed. [See Appendix.] The report embraced a full reply to the opinions announced in the Executive message on the subject of intershield, Drayton, Eager, Ellsworth, Geo. Evans, Horace nal improvement, and concluded with the following resoEverett, Finch, Foster, Grennell, Gurley, Hawkins, Hod-lution: ges, Hughes, Hint, Huntington, Ingersoll, Thomas Irwin, | Jarvis, ment should continue to prosecute internal improvements, Martindale, Mercer, Miller, Muhlenberg, Pearce, Pier: by direct appropriations of money, or by subscriptions for son, Reed, Rose, Semmes, Stanbery, Sterigere, H. R. stock in companies incorporated in the respective States.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10.
INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS.

Resolved, That it is expedient that the General Govern

Baltimore and Washington Railroad.--Extension of a Patent.--Susan Decatur et al. [FEB. 11, 1831.

Mr. DANIEL replied: The case differed from others, it was true, but the public was not yet in possession of the discovery; the process was not understood; and there was only one machine in the United States, by which the prac ticability of the discovery could be tested; and that machine had fallen into the hands of a gentleman of fortune, after the time for which the patent right was originally granted had expired. This gentleman was totally ignorant of the mode by which the operation was to be carried on; and This being the day set apart for District business, Mr. in his zeal to secure the advantages that must result to the DODDRIDGE moved that the House take up the bill to nation from the invention, he searched out the inventor, authorize the extension, construction, and use of a lateral and found that the machine under his management answerbranch of the Baltimore and Ohio railroad, into and with-ed all the purposes which its inventor set forth. in the District of Columbia.

FEB. 12, 14, 1831.]

Indian Affairs--Question of Order.

[H. OF R.

Mrs. Decatur was read, detailing her present distressed hoon, Childs, Chilton, Claiborne, Clark, Coke, Conner, situation, and appealing to Congress, in very strong and Cooper, Cowles, Crane, Crawford, Crockett, Creighton, eloquent terms, for relief.]

A motion to fill the blank with the sum of one hundred thousand dollars, was agreed to.

Davenport, John Davis, Desha, Doddridge, Draper, Duncan, Ellsworth, George Evans, Horace Everett, Findlay, Gaither, Grennell, Hall, Hammons, Harvey, Hughes, Some conversation then took place as to the proper Hunt, Huntington, Ihrie, Irvin, Johns, Kendall, Kincaid, mode of distribution of the sum appropriated between the Perkins King, Lamar, Leavitt, Lecompte, Letcher, Loysurviving officers and crews and the legal representatives all, Lumpkin, Lyon, Martindale, Lewis Maxwell, McCoy, of the parties concerned, in which Messrs. STORRS, of Miller, Pierce, Pierson, Ramsey, Rencher, Roane, Russel, New York, HOFFMAN, MALLARY, SPEIGHT, and Aug. H. Shepperd, Shields, Sill, Speight, Sprigg, StanMCDUFFIE, took part. It was eventually decided that defer, Henry R. Storrs, Strong, Sutherland, Swann, the words of the bill of the last session, to distribute the Swift, Taylor, John Thomson, Trezvant, Tucker, Vance, sum agreeably to the provisions of the prize act, should Vinton, Whittlesey, Williams, Yancey, Young.-89. be stricken out. So the bill was rejected.

Mr. MILLER then submitted an amendment, to give to the nieces of Commodore Decatur ten thousand dollars of the sum.

Mr. STORRS, of New York, moved that, when the House adjourns, it do adjourn to Monday; and said he made the motion on account of the two or three hours' After some remarks by Messrs. HOFFMAN, CARSON, darkness that would occur to-morrow: whereupon, BARRINGER, CRAIG, SUTHERLAND, DODDRIDGE,| Mr. WHITTLESEY moved that the House do now adSTORRS, of New York, and McDUFFIE, and the read-journ; but withdrew it, to give an opportunity for Mr. ing of the will of Commodore Decatur, DODDRIDGE to move a reconsideration of the bill just re

Mr. WHITTLESEY moved that the committee rise,jected, with a view also to move a reconsideration of the and that the bill and various amendments be printed, so last amendment agreed to. Pending which motion, another that there might be some understanding of the provisions was made to adjourn; and proposed to be adopted. The motion was negatived.

Mr. MILLER then modified his motion so as to confine the donation of ten thousand dollars to two nieces of Com. Decatur, daughters of Mr. McKnight; and the question being put upon the motion, it was determined in the negative-yeas 75, nays 81.

Mr. BUCHANAN then moved that the committee rise, and report the bill to the House, as amended. The motion prevailed.

In the House the amendments were agreed to; which provided for paying the boat's crew, adopted at the last session, and that adopted to-day for filling the blank in the bill with one hundred thousand dollars.

Mr. STORRS, of New York, demanded the yeas and nays on agreeing to the amendment striking out the clause for paying the parties concerned, agreeably to the provisions of the prize act; and they were ordered.

After some remarks by Messrs. CLAY, STORRS, of New York, HOFFMAN, and HUNTINGTON, the question was put, and decided in the affirmative--yeas 97, Days 58.

Mr. WILDE then demanded the previous question, and Mr. DRAPER moved an adjournment; which motion was decided in the negative-yeas 59.

The House having seconded the demand for the previous question,

On the question, "Shall the main question be now put?" it was determined in the affirmative.

The main question was then put, as follows: "Shall the bill be engrossed for a third reading?" and determined in the negative, as follows:

The House adjourned.

INDIAN AFFAIRS-QUESTION OF ORDER. The petition laid on the table by Mr. EVERETT, of Massachusetts, last Monday, from sundry citizens of Massachusetts, praying the repeal of the Indian law of last session, &c., was announced by the Chair as now before the House for disposal.

Mr. EVERETT rose, and was proceeding to address the Chair; when

Mr. TUCKER, of S. C., interposed, and demanded that the question of "consideration" be put, and the Speaker announced this to be the question.

[This question precludes debate on any motion, unless the House decides in favor of its consideration.]

Mr. LUMPKIN demanded the yeas and nays on the question of "consideration;" and they were ordered.

Mr. EVERETT said it was with great regret he was obliged to say that he considered the demand for the question of consideration out of order; the petition had been received by the House, and, if this motion were entertained by the Chair, it would cut off all debate on the petition, which Mr. E. said he had a right to discuss, on presenting it, if he thought proper.

The SPEAKER said the House had a right to decide whether it would consider the gentleman's motion-it had a right to refuse to receive the petition itself. Mr. EVERETT. But the House has received the petition, Mr. SPEAKER.

YEAS.-Messrs. Anderson, Arnold, Baylor, Beekman, Brodhead, Brown, Buchanan, Cambreleng, Campbell, Carson, Clay, Coleman, Condict, Coulter, Craig, Crocheron, Crowninshield, Warren R. Davis, Deberry, Denny, Dickinson, Drayton, Dwight, Eager, Earll, Joshua Evans, Edward Everett, Finch, Ford, Forward, Fry, Gilmore, Gordon, Green, Halsey, Hawkins, Haynes, Hinds, Hodges, Hoffman, Howard, Hubbard, Ingersoll, The SPEAKER said the petition had been received and Thomas Irwin, Jarvis, Jennings, R. M. Johnson, Cave laid on the table; that the House had a right now to say Johnson, Lea, Leiper, Lent, Mallary, Marr, Martin, Tho- whether it would consider the gentleman's motion touchmas Maxwell, McCreery, McDuffie, McIntire, Mercer, ing its reference, and therefore the demand for the question Mitchell, Muhlenberg, Nuckolls, Patton, Overton, Pettis, of consideration was in order; and he proceeded to refer Polk, Potter, Sanford, Scott, Sterigere, Stephens, Talia-to the rules, and explain his construction of them, to show ferro, Varnum, Verplanck, Washington, Weeks, C. P. the propriety of his decision.

White, E. D. White, Wickliffe, Wilde, Wilson.-81. Mr. VINTON moved a call of the House, which was NAYS.-Messrs. Alexander, Allen, Alston, Angel, agreed to; and the Clerk having called the roll of the memArmstrong, Bailey, Noyes Barber, Barnwell, Barringer, bers, and the attendance appearing to be pretty full, furBates, James Blair, John Blair, Bockec, Bouldin, Ca-ther proceeding in the call was suspended.