網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

were commensurate with my zeal, I would raise my voice to such a pitch of remonstrance” against this cruel injustice to a generous people, this mischievous policy of those in whom that people have confided, this flagrant outrage upon the laws and constitution, “that it should reach every log house beyond the mountains.” I would say to the inhabitants of this land, to its utmost borders, rise in your majesty and sovereignty, and hurl from his place of power every public man within the reach of a ballot-box, who has sought to perpetrate these atrocious evils upon the body politic, or who has been supine and inactive whilst others have been #. of their perpetration! But, sir, as I cannot be heeded by the nation beyond the district of my own constituents, I would speak with a “still small voice” to those who are near me. In my present relation to the President, I cannot condescend, as an independent representative of a people yet free, to offer an apology for the course I have been driven to pursue by the late measures of the Executive. I claim rather an atonement from the man whom I supported for the presidency for'such acts of misrule. But if I were permitted to expostulate with him, as still a sincere personal friend, I would warn him to “shake off the serpent from his hand, ere poison and death ensue from the bite of the reptile!”

I will say to my personal friends in the administration ranks: “I am no deserter, and have a right to speak to a brother soldier. It is true I have left your camp, not be. cause I disliked the corps to which I belonged, but because there were vermin there; and I enlisted under the banners of the “Old Chief’ to fight for my country, and not against her most sacred institutions and dearest rights. I call upon you who are faithful to him to save the timehonored warrior from the “deep damnation’ of the bitter curses of an injured and insulted people, groaning under the pillaging policy of ‘orderly sergeants,” reckless alike of the country’s welfare and of the President’s popularity, enriched with the “spoils of victory,' and flushed to madness with the intoxication of repeated triumphs!”

Sir, I will say to members, of whatever party, “Show to the world that is there are too many who love to be tempted to o: their trusts, by a well-managed venality, there are a few who find a greater satisfaction in being thought beyond its influence.”

I will say to the people: “Ho! every patriot to the rescue !” And, “if the worst comes to the worst,” 1 would put up to the God of nations the prayer of Warsaw's last champion—

[ocr errors]

Willen Mr. Wis E had concluded, Mr. PEYTON replied, and closed by calling for the reading of the amendment he had proposed to the resolutions at the time they were offered. Mr. MILLER moved that the memorial, resolutions, and amendment be laid upon the table. Mr. WILDE moved a call of the House; which being agreed to, The House was called, and one hundred and eighty-five members answered to their names. Mr. WHITTLESEY then moved that further proceedings in the call be suspended. On this motion Mr. MANN, of New York, demanded the yeas and nays; which being ordered, Mr. Whittir. s=r withdrew his motion, The doors were then closed, the names of absentees called over, and excuses received in their behalf. Repeated attempts were made by Mr. WILDE and Mr. J. K. MANN to have the call suspended, which at length succeeded: Yays 117; nays 63. Mr. BEARDSLEY moved to adjourn. The yeas and nays being demanded, and taken, resulted as follows:

The question was now put on the motion of Mr. MILLHR, to lay the memorial, resolutions, and amendment, on the table. The resolutions and amendment were then read at the Clerk’s table. Mr. FILLMORE inquired whether the question was divisible? The CHAIR decided that it was not. l The yeas and nays were then called, and stood as folows: YEAS–Messrs. John Adams, William Allen, Anthony, Beale, Bean, Beardsley, Beaumont, Blair, Bockee, Bodle, Bouldin, Brown, Bunch, Burns, Bynum, Cambreleng, Carr, Casey, Chaney, Chinn, Samuel Clark, Clay, Coffee, Cramer, Day, Dickerson, Dickinson, Dunlap, Forester, William K. Fuller, Fulton Galbraith, Gillet, Joseph Hall, Halsey, Hamer, Hannegan, Joseph M. Harper, Harrison, Hathaway, Hawkins, Henderson, Howell, Hubbard, Abel Huntington, Inge, Jarvis, Cave Johnson, Benjamin Jones, Kavanagh, Kinnard, Lane, Lansing, Laporte, Luke Lea, Thomas Lee, Leavitt, Loyall, Lyon, Lytle, Abijah Mann, Joel K. Mann, Mardis, John Y. Mason, Moses Mason, McIntire, McKay, McKim, McKinley, McLene, McVean, Miller, Henry Mitchell, Robert Mitchell, Muhlenberg, Murphy, Osgood, Page, Parks, Parker, Patterson, D. J. Pearce, Franklin Pierce, Pierson, Polk, Pope, Schenck, Schley, Smith, Speight, Standeser, Stoddert, Sutherland, William Taylor, Francis Thomas, Thomson, Turrill, Vanderpoel, Van Houten, Wagener, Ward, Wardwell, Webster, Whallon, C. P. White—105. NAYS-Messrs. John Q. Adams, Heman Allen, John J. Allen, Archer, Ashley, Banks, Barber, Barnitz, Barringer, Baylies, Beaty, James M. Bell, Binney, Briggs, Bull, Burges, Cage, Chambers, Chilton, Choate, Willian Clark, Clayton, Clowney, Corwin, Coulter, Darlington, Warren R. Davis, Davenport, Deberry, Deming, Denny, Dickson, Duncan, Evans, E. Everett, H. Everett, Ewing, Felder, Fillmore, Foster, Philo C. Fuller, Gambie, Garland, Gholson, Gilmer, Grayson, Grennell, Griffin, Hiland Hall, Hard, Hardin, James Harper, Hazeltine, I liester, Jabez W. Huntington, Jackson, William Cost Johnson, King, Lay, Lewis, Lincoln, Martindale, Marshall, Mc Carty, McComas, McKennan, Mercer, Milligan, Moore, Peyton, Pinckney, Potts, Ramsay, Reed, Rencher, Selden, Augustine H. Shepperd, William Slade, Sloane, Spangler, Steele, William P. Taylor, Philemon Thomas, Tompkins, Turner, Tweedy, Vance, Vinton, Watmough, E. D. White, F. Whittlesey, Elisha Whittlesey, Wilde, Williams, Wilson, Wise, Young—97. On motion of Mr. C. P. W HITE, The House then adjourned.

Turs DAY, JUNE 10. ADJOURNMFNT.

The rule being suspended for the purpose, the House proceeded to the consideration of the amendment of the Senate to the resolution fixing a day for the adjournment of Congress, making said resolution read, “close the present session of Congress, by an adjournment of their respective Houses, on Monday, the 30th June, instant,” instead of “June next,” as in the form in which the re. solve went from this House.

The said amendment was agreed to.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, ST. LOUIS.

Mr. POLK, from the Committee of Ways and Means, to which was reserred the bill passed by the Senate, for the relief of this church, at St. Louis, Missouri, said he was instructed by them to report that the bill be rejected; and he moved that the bill and report should be

[ocr errors]

printed.

[ocr errors]

Mr. ASHLEY desired some information as to the motive of the committee in recommending the rejection of the bill. r Mr. POLK repeated that the committee had reported that the bill should be rejected, and said that, as it would be printed, the honorable member might hereafter satisfy the House, if he could, as to the propriety of granting the relief sought for. The bill was then ordered to be printed, and committed to a committee of the whole House. Mr. MERCER obtained leave to submit the following resolution, which he proposed as an amendment to the standing rules of the House, and which lies on the table one day (by rule) for consideration: Resolved, That the following rule be added to the standing rules of this House: When any motion is depending before the House, whether of the nature of an original resolution or bill, or be an amendment thereof, it shall be in order for any member, entitled to the floor, to move “that the debate on such motion shall cease;” and, if this motion be seconded by a majority of the House, it shall be put without further debate; and, if adopted by the House, the motion depending shall be put without further delay; provided, that a call of the House may be received prior to the final vote thereon. On motion of Mr. R. M. JOHNSON, the bill further to extend the time for the purpose of enabling revolutionary soldiers to locate military land warrants, was taken up. Mr. VINTON remarked that, as it was on his motion the bill had been laid on the table, he desired to explain, that he had made that motion for the purpose of moving an amendment, giving to the persons entitled, the same privilege (taking out scrip) that had been extended to other revolutionary soldiers; but, as the honorable member from Kentucky thought, if he now proposed his amendment, the passage of the bill might be embarrassed, he would abstain from offering it. The bill was then, on the suggestion of Mr. WHITTLESEY, verbally amended, and ordered to be engrossed, for a third reading to-morrow. Mr. VINTON obtained leave to offer an amendment, to be printed; intimating that it was his intention to propose to add it to the bill prohibiting the issue of notes under $10, by the corporations of Washington, George. town, and Alexandria, when that bill should be taken up for consideration. The proposed amendment was ordered to be printed. Mr. WILSON asked the consent of the House to suspend the rules, for the purpose of presenting, without debate, memorials and petitions, which lay over. The House refused to suspend the rules, and proceeded to the special order of the day, being the consideration of

THE KENTUCKY CONTESTED FLECTION.

The question was upon the amendment moved by Mr. BANKs, to the resolution reported by the Committee of Flections, as proposed to be amended by Mr. Pope, as follows:

Resolved, That the votes of A. Kavanagh, George Elliot, jr., Moses Bryant, John Shipman, Shelton Harris, John Floyd, Jeremiah Anderson, Garrit Norris, John D. Stone, M. B. Morely, William Woolsey, Cornelius Neevis, James Moorman, Robert Figg, John Cornett, and George Callett, be stricken from Mr. Letcher's poll, it having been proved that they were minors at the time of the election.

Resolved, That the votes of William Gwinn, John McCoy, and William Wright, who voted in Garrard and Lincoln counties; and of Greenbury Peyton, and William Welsh, who voted in Jessamine county, be stricken from Mr. Letcher's poll, it having been proved that they were

t

Election. Resolved, That the vote of Rowland Shields ought to be counted for Mr. Moore on the Lincoln poll-book, it having been wrongfully stricken off by the judges of the election. Resolved, That the vote of John Brady be taken from Mr. Letcher's poll, and counted on that of Mr. Moore, on the ground that he had in the first instance, bona fide, and without mistake, voted for Mr. Moore. Mr. POPE proposed to modify his amendment by adding several names to those whom he proposed, by the amendment, to strike from the poll of Mr. Letcher. Mr. BANKS, who was entitled to the floor when this subject was last under consideration, replied, in detail, to the argument heretofore made by Mr. Pope in support of his amendment. Mr. P. DICKERSON said: Mr. Speaker, I must ask the indulgence of the House for but a few minutes, whilst I express my views of the subject now under discussion. It is now proposed further to amend the original resolution, by striking out of the list of voters the names of some persons who are alleged to have been minors at the time of the election. I shall vote against this amendment for the same reasons that I have heretofore voted against all the amendments which have been proposed. The object of the present inquiry and discussion is to ascertain the person entitled to represent the fifth congressional district of Kentucky upon this floor. The result of that inquiry should be a resolution declaring the person entitled to the seat. The committee have reported such resolution, declaring that Thomas P. Moore is entitled to the seat. And I contend that, according to the correct course of proceeding, and to all precedents, no proper amendment can be proposed to that resolution, except to strike out the name of Mr. Moore, and insert that of Mr. Letcher. I therefore have voted against all the amendments which have hitherto been proposed, and shall continue to vote against all of a similar character that may be hereafter proposed. Before I can vote for an amendment to any resolution, I must be first satisfied, not only that the principle contained in the proposed amendment is correct, but that it is proper to add it, by way of amendment, to the original resolution. The term amendment implies that the proposition proposed to be amended is imperfect, either in form or substance. It cannot be pretended that the present resolution is defective in form; and if it be wrong in substance, it is in respect to the person named therein, and not otherwise. I therefore insist that no sufficient reason can be shown why the several amendments which have already been adopted, or that which is now proposed, should be attached to the original resolution reported by the committee in this case. Permit me to call the attention of the House to the form which their resolution, with the amendments, will present, when completed according to the present plan. The original resolution declares that one of the candidates is entitled to his seat. This settles the question fully and definitively, and concludes the whole subject. We shall then have, by way of amendment, a number of propositions containing the very matter which should be the basis of the arguments in support of the original resolutions, but which, to my view, appear entirely misplaced when used as amendments to that resolution. As to precedent, I have examined the journals of the proceedings of this House, from the formation of ourGovernment to this time; and I believe that no precedent can be found to justify the present course of proceedingIn similar cases, the resolutions are almost all reported, and adopted in the simplest form, declaring who is entitled to the seat. 1 find, however, two cases in which efforts were made to attach to the resolution some qualification of a similar

[JUNE 10, 1834.

not citizens of Kentucky at the time of the election,

character to those now proposed. In the case of the con

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

tested election in 1807, between William McCreery and Joshua Barney, of Maryland, the Committee of Elections made a report in these words: “Resolved, That William McCreery, having the greatest number of votes, and being duly qualified, agreeably to the constitution of the United States, is entitled to his seat in this House.” The Committee of the Whole House, after argument, struck out the words “having the greatest number of votes, and being duly qualified, agreeably to the constitution of the United States, by a vote of 70 to 37. A motion was then made to insert the words, “by having the qualifications prescribed by the laws of Maryland,” after the words William McCreery, but it was negatived by a vote of 92 to 8; and the resolution, in its simple form, was adopted by a vote of 89 to 18. In this case, the matter which was proposed by way of amendment must have been true, and yet the House decided, and I think correctly, that it should not form a part of the resolution, nor be inserted by way of amendment to the same. A similar course was pursued in the case of Philip B. Key, of Maryland, whose election was contested by some of his electors, in 1808. In that case the resolution reported was, “That Philip B. Key, having the greatest number of votes, and being qualified agreeably to the constitution of the United States, is entitled to his seat in this Ilouse.” The House struck out the words “having the greatest number of votes,” &c. by a vote of 79 to 28, leaving the resolution in its most simple form, which was adopted by a vote of only 57 to 52. These two cases show the practice in this House, and, I think, establish the true rule: that the resolution in such cases should express only the result of the investigation, and not the grounds or arguments which have led to that result, These are my views upon the subject, and such as have governed my votes upon this occasion. But as it appears that a majority of the House are disposed to adopt a different course, and in fact to argue this question by taking the ayes and noes, I certainly do not feel disposed to interfere with their views. But I would respectfully submit that a due respect to former precedents, and to the form of your resolution, would require that, aster the House shall have finished the discussion by taking the ayes and noes upon the several proposed amendments, they will restore the resolution reported by the committee to its original simplicity of form, either by the operation of the previous question, or by such other course as may better suit the feelings of the House. Mr. HARD1N opposed the amendment by a few remarks. Mr. POPE made a further explanation of his views in offering the amendment. The House having, by its former votes, gone behind the doings of the committee in favor of one party, should give similar benefit to the other. For himself, he was originally opposed to the course. But it having been adopted, the principle ought to be inpartially applied. Mr. P. went into an explanation relative to the names contained in his proposition, by referring, in detail, to the printed testimony. Mr. P. concluded by modifying his amendment, by striking of three names contained in his amendment as originally offered. Mr. MARSHALL, after some remarks, moved to amend the amendment by striking off certain maines from the poll of Mr. Moore. Mr. MOORE, of Virginia, suggested that the question had better be taken first on the proposition of the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. Pope.] After some conversation between Messrs. HAn or N, Pope, MansitAll, and C. Ali,AN, as to the mode of proceeding, - Mr. MARSHALL withdrew his amendment. Mr. JONES, of Georgia, made some statements and

Mr. MOORE mentioned certain votes upon which he wished the question to be taken separately. Mr. SUTHERLAND, after adverting to the late period of the session, the press of important business, and the impossibility of arriving at any result this session, if we . went on in this way, strongly urged the House to meet the question at once, and decide, from the facts before them, which of the claimants is entitled to the seat. Mr. BURGES suggested that, if the previous question was resorted to, we should have to decide, without further investigation, whether Mr. Letcher was elected by a majority of twelve votes or not. The gentleman from Pennsylvania did not probably intend to invite the House to vote Mr. Letcher in, and it would be still more extraordinary if he wished them to vote for Mr. Moore. Mr. FOSTER wished, he said, to decide the question to-day, and he would sit here with a majority of the House till midnight for that purpose. Let us, said he, appoint two tellers, and take the question on each individual vote. In this way we could ascertain who was elected. We could not vote upon all the names in mass. That would be to guess at a result. Mr. SUTHERLAND made a few remarks in support of his previous suggestions. Mr. MARSHALL submitted a substitute for the proposition of Mr. Pope, including in the substitute the several names proposed to be excepted by himself and by his colleague, [Mr. Pope.] Mr. FILL MORE suggested that the readiest mode of arriving at a correct result, would be to take the question upon each name separately. Mr. LANE said it was perfectly apparent that we might go on till the end of the session with this discussion, without obtaining a decision of the question. As few gentlemen appeared now to be prepared to act on this subject, he moved the postponement of its further consideration till to-morrow week. Mr. LYTLE said the discussion had gone to an extent which must satisfy any one that the House, having left the principles of the committee, will take at least three months before they arrive at a conclusion. Believing that the House was as well prepared now as it would ever be to decide the question, he called for the previous question. Mr. WILDE asked what would be the effect of the previous question? The CHAIR stated that the effect would be to obtain the question on the original resolution reported from the committee, as amended by the House. Mr. HUBBARD made some remarks on the point of order. Mr. MANN, of New York, asked whether the Chair had decided that the previous question would not cut off the amendments which had been adopted? The CII AllR had so decided. Mr. MANN hoped, then, that the motion for the previous question would be withdrawn. Mr. LYTLE said he would withdraw it for the present. Mr. LANE withdrew the motion to postpone. The question then being on the substitute offered by Mr. MAItsh ALL– Mr. MARSHALL said he would withdraw it, and of. fer it in paragraphs, as amendments to the proposition of his colleague, [Mr. Pore.] The question being then on Mr. Pork's amendment, it was taken separately on each name. The question of striking off the name of A. Kavanagh from the poll of Mr. Letcher was taken by yeas and nays, and determined in the affirmative: Yeas 151, nays

The names of George Elliott, Jun., Moses Bryant, John Shipman, and L. Harris, were also severally stricken

explanations relative to the names of voters in the amendIII:nt. Vol. X. —278

off.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, on striking off the name of john Floyd, it was determined in the negative: Yeas 48, nays 143. ‘the question was then taken upon striking off the name of Jeremiah Anderson. After some observations by Messrs. HARD IN, FILLMohe, LANE, S. Jox Es, MERCER, J. IIAur ER, ViN'ron, McKINLEY, and GILMER, Mr. LYTLE moved the previous question. Mr. HUBBARD inquired what was the main question, and whether it was divisible? The chAIR stated the main question to be upon the adoption of the resolution reported by the Committee of Elections, as amended by the House, and explained how far it was divisible. The previous question was not seconded: Ayes 100, noes 102. Mr. BURGES moved the House adjourn; but, on the ayes and noes being ordered, he withdrew the motion. Mr. ANTHONY renewed the motion to adjourn; upon which the ayes and noes were ordered. The motion was lost: Ayes 66, moes 145. Mr. S. JONES demanded the yeas and nays on striking out the name of Anderson; which were ordered. The motion to strike out was negatived: Ayes 92, noes 103. The previous question was again demanded by Mr. LYTLE. Mr. McKENNAN inquired whether, if the previous question was sustained, it would be in order to substitute the name of R. P. Letcher for that of T. P. Moore in the resolution. The CHAIR explained, that, if the House negatived the resolution declaring Mr. Moore entitled to the seat, it would be competent to offer another, declaring Mr. Letcher entitled to it. The call for the previous question was sustained: Ayes 105, noes 96. Mr. MARSHALL moved a call of the House. Mr. HARDIN demanded the ayes and noes on that question. The call was ordered: Ayes 119, noes 85. 216 members answered to their names. Mr. WARD then moved the suspension of the call. Mr. HARDIN demanded the yeas and nays. Mr. WARD then withdrew his motion. The call then proceeded. After various members had been excused Mr. MANN moved the call be suspended; on which, Mr. HARDIN called for the yeas and nays; which were ordered. The suspension of the call was carried: Ayes 129, noes 85. The question, “Shall the main question be now put?” was propounded. Mr. HARDIN moved the House adjourn, and demanded the yeas and nays; which were ordered. The motion to adjourn was negatived: Ayes 59, noes 152. Mr. MERCER moved to reconsider the vote he had given to strike out sundry votes from the poll of Mr. Letcher. The CHAIR decided the motion was not in order, the House having sustained the previous question, which was of a higher order of privileged questions. Mr. MERCER appealed from the decision of the Chair, and supported his appeal at length. Mr. W. R. DAVIS inquired whether the vote, the reconsideration of which was moved, had been given before or after the previous question was moved. . The CHAIR said the vote was given before the previous question was moved. Mr. E. EVERETT asked for the reading of the fortyfirst rule; which was done accordingly,

[blocks in formation]

Mr. CLAY supported the decision of the Chair, and called for the reading of the thirty-fifth rule of the House; which was read. Mr. LYTLE made some remarks, which were replied to by Mr. MERCER. The question was further debated by Messrs. W1 loz, Thomas, VINTox, Sr. Eight, Fosten, Lytle, McKENNAN; when Mr. MERCER withdrew the motion to reconsider, and his appeal. Mr. McKENNAN asked if it was in order to call the attention of the House to the fact that, according to the amendments adopted by the House, Robert P. Letcher had a majority of the votes, and was therefore elected. The CHAIR pronounced that it was not in order. The reading of the resolutions, as amended, was called for; and they were read. Mr. MARSHALL asked that the statements of the deductions from votes, &c., should be read from the report of the Committee of Elections. [Loud cries of order.] The CHAIR decided that it was not in order, as it was in the nature of argument. Mr. MARSHALL appealed from the decision of the Chair. The question being taken on the appeal, the decision of the Chair was sustained. The question then being, “Shall the main question be now put?” it was taken by yeas and nays, and determined in the negative: Ayes 108, nays 112. Mr. HARDIN moved the House adjourn; which was carried. The House then adjourned.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

The bill from the Senate, to settle the northern boundary line of Ohio, coming up for a third reading, Mr. ALLEN, of Ohio, moved that its consideration should be postponed until Thursday week, and for which it should be made the special order. Mr. LYON moved to refer it to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. ALLEN, then rose, and, in support of his own motion, in opposition to the motion, and in answer to the remarks of Mr. Lyo N, said: . Mr. Speaker: I shall oppose the reference of this bill to the Judiciary, or any other committee; not that I anticipate a report unfavorable to the bill, but because such a reference, in whatever report it may finally result, whether in favor of or against the bill, must, in either event, prove equivalent to its absolute rejection. The period for the adjournment is aiready fixed, and near at hand. An iminense mass of business, which has been accumulating for six months past, is yet unfinished, and must necessarily be crowded into the twenty remaining days of the session. It is evident, therefore, that the bill, should it be referred, cannot return in time to receive the action of this body. Of this the honorable gentleman from Michigan must be aware, and if so, it will be difficult for him to

assign any other motive for this motion, than a desire to

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

achieve the defeat of the bill—not, indeed, by invoking the attention of the House to the facts upon which the bill is predicated, or its judgment upon the question arising from those facts, but by anticipating both, and giving to the bill a direction so circuitous and dilatory as to render it impossible for the House to regain its possession, much less to discuss its merits, during the present session. Sir, I regret that, whilst the question now before the House thus evidently involves the fate of the bill, as much so as if it were the question upon its final passage or rejection, yet that I am precluded, by the mere form of the question, from entering upon the discussion of its ineruts. I regret, too, that the House, should the gentleman’s nation prevail, will have inflicted upon Ohio the deepest injustice, without having had the opportunity of knowing the extent of the injury, or having first allowed the State even the common privilege of discussion. The gentleman from Michigan has based his chief argument, for the reference of the bill to the Judiciary Committee, upon the assumption that such a reference is the regular, and only regular, parliamentary course. The assumption is untrue, and the argument dependent upon it, therefore, necessarily unsound. When a bill, originating in the Senate, passes that body and comes to this, the only arbitrary rule for its disposition is, that it shall receive the action of this House, not in any one particular, but in some one of many forms. It may be retained in the House, and there disposed of, in any one of several modes; or it may be referred or committed; and if so, to the Committee of the Whole House, to the appropriate standing committee, or to a select committee, raised for the especial purpose. Whether a bill shall be thus retained in and abide the pleasure of the House, or committed to the one or the other of these three several classes of committees, must depend upon the peculiar circumstances attending each particular bill. It must depend upon the nature of the subject which the bill embraces; the character and importance of the questions and principles it presents; the magnitude of the interests involved in its fate; and, in some degree, upon the period of the session at which the bill comes to the House. And this is equally true of every class of bills, except such as impose a tax or charge upon the people, or provide for the appropriation of money, and which are required by the rules to be debated first in the Committee of the Whole House. In the discussion of the gentleman’s motion to commit this bill to the Judiciary Committee, the first question is: Do there exist any facts or circumstances, connected with the subject-matter of the bill, or will there arise in the discussion, any question involving principles which render it necessary, before such discussion, to commit the bill to any committee at all; and, if so, to the Judiciary Committee in particular? The only remaining question is: Will the House, supposing no such necessity to exist, nevertheless refer the bill, when such reference must result in its rejection, and such rejection in doing injustice to a sovereign State? In examining the first of these questions, I shall lay it down as a general proposition, that if the question of boundary which this bill involves is already presented to the House, as fully, as fairly, and as little obscured or encumbered by extrinsic circumstances or immaterial facts as it can ever be presented by a committee were the bill referred; if the House is now in possession of every thing necessary to fix its attention upon the only question, which the bill submits, and to aid its judgment in the solution of that question; if the committee could do nothing more than to report for or against the bill, without fináing an additional fact or argument for the one or the other, of which the House is not already in the pos: ...jon, f, in a word, the report of a committee could

leave the subject only where the committee found it, then, sir, such a reference must be not only unnecessary, but necessarily absurd. That such, and such alone, would be the result of a reference of a bill to a committee, and such their report, upon it, I shall now proceed to show, by pursuing, briefly, the process through which this subject has passed from its first inception in this House to its maturity in the form of the present bill. The application of the Territory of Michigan for adinission as a State into the Union, was, at the commencement of the present session, referred, in the distributive order of business, to the Committee on Territories of this House. As it was evident that a bill providing for the admission, must necessarily define the boundaries of the contemplated State, and consequently present to this House the very question which it is the purpose of the present bill to settle, the delegation from Ohio requested my honorable friend and colleague [Mr. V.1.x to N] and myself to appear before the committee to submit the views and guard tie interests of our State; and, in so doing, to prevail, if possible, with the committee to prescribe the southern boundary of the intended State, in accordance with the rights of Ohio. In obedience to this request, my colleague and myself did appear; but not alone; the gentleman from Michigan also appeared. And there, sir, with the indulgent permission of the committee, the question of boundary was fully and amply discussed. Every public act and official document, either directly or indirectly affecting the question, from the original acts of cession by Virginia, and the ordinance of Congress of 1787, down to the memorials of the Legis: lature of Ohio and the Legislative Council of Michigan of the present year to congress, were exhibited to the com: mittee, illustrated by, and imbodied in, the arguments of either party. The various maps of the country, necessary to an understanding of the real question in controversy, were also produced, and explained in the discussion. The arguments on both sides were, in their full extent, ultimately reduced to writing; and they, together with all the material public and official acts and documents to which they referred, were subsequently printed and imbodied in a volume of a hundred pages, submitted to this House in the report of the Territorial Committee, and laid upon the desk of each member. - - The bill reported by the committee, providing not for the admission of the Territory into the Union, but for ta; king the census, as preparatory to such admission, did not present the question of boundary between the State and the Territory. In the meantime, however, the bill which is the sub: ject of the present motion originated in the Senato, and was there referred to the Judiciary Committee of that body. And now, sir, I ask the attention of the House to the part which the honorable gentleman from Michigan acted upon that occasion. He did not then offer any obstruction to the progress of the bill; nor did he then dis. pute the power of Čongress over the subject; declare the guestion exclusively judicial, and that it therefore fell within the orbit of the federal judiciary. No, sir; but, in the rapturous anticipation of a result favorable to the pretensions of his Territory, he addressed a letter to the chairman of the Senatorial committee, congratulating himself upon the course the bill had taken, and upon the disinterested justice of the committee who had it in chargeIn the concluding paragraph of that letter the gentleman says: “ The setting of the construction which gon: gress may now give to that part of the fifth article of the ordinancé, which relates to the formation of one or, two states in that part of the Northwestern Territory lying north of an east and west line drawn through the southern extreme of Lake Michigan, is a subject of such vast and vital importance to the prosperity and interests of both

« 上一頁繼續 »