« 上一頁繼續 »
Mr. Letcher, and making the necessary deductions, there was about a similar majority for that candidate. For himself, he felt perfectly indifferent upon the question. He had entered into no party feelings on the subject. From the commencement he had been of opinion that the election should be sent back, and he would take upon him to say that, any moment when the friends of either candidate thought he was in danger, they would have been ready to have given their support to this proposition. Mr. CLAYTON opposed the motion to commit. Had the sheriff of Lincoln county done his duty, Mr. Letcher would have taken his seat under a regular certificate. Mr. C. made some comments upon the remark of Mr. McKay that he did not feel bound by the votes which had been decided by the House. We had gone through on one side, and we ought now to go through the other. He was willing to meet the result. Mr. ANTHONY said he had hitherto been a listener to the discussion which had grown out of this contest, and would ask the indulgence of the House, while he stated his accordance with the views of the gentleman from North Carolina, as he had been for some time convinced of the impracticability of coming to a satisfactory conclusion upon the large mass of contradictory testimony which had been taken in this case. He stated that there were upwards of eleven hundred pages before him, out of which the conclusion was to be drawn who was entitled to the seat; that the majority on either side was not contended to be more than ten or a dozen votes, the evidence was so doubtful and conflicting that he had found it utterly im. possible to satisfy his mind, without neglecting those other important duties which devolved on him as a representative. From the manner in which other members had voted upon several questions relating to the matter, it was obvious that many were in a similar situation. The immense mass of testimony compelled gentlemen to take the facts, to a certain extent, upon trust; they had to rely upon the faith which they had in the statements of those who had examined the evidence, and Although it might with propriety be said that “faith without works is dead, being alone,” yet he candidly apealed to other gentleman to say whether they had carefully read these 1,100 pages, so that they were enabled to determine who was legally and duly elected a member of the 5th congressional district of Kentucky, or whether they had pinned their faith on the sleeves of the Committee of Elections on the one side, and on certain members who attentively considered the subject on the other? The honorable gentleman from Georgia had remarked that the questions in dispute were matters of law, and not of fact. To a certain extent he was correct; but many questions involved in the decision were of complicated doubtful facts, about which there was a variety of evidence on both sides, and it was extremely difficult to arrive at the truth. He admitted the propriety of counting the votes taken at the Garrard poll before 10 o'clock on the first day, and during the absence of the sheriff on the second, when he was attending to the highest of all earthly duties, the sick bed of a dying wife, was a question of law which did not involve any controverted facts; yet the votes of the students at Danville College, the Salvisa votes, as well as those of iminors, non-residents, &c. which had occupied the House for some days, were no more or less than sheer questions of fact; and, until members agreed on the fact, it was impossible to determine the law in such cases. It was only necessary, in order to show how difficult it was to arrive at a just conclusion, to state that, on the proposition to deprive Mr. Letcher of nineteen votes, given during the sheriff’s absence on the second day, the gentleman from Georgia was in a small minority; and yet that gentleman was willing to take the opinion of the House on that point and forego his own; because, as he said, it was
a question of law. For his part, he agreed that, in law, the rule stare decisis should usually prevail; but, in this case, he would vote according to the best of his judgment on every question made, and would not consent that a majority of the House should, by their decision on isolated points, control the ultimate vote he might give. Mr. A. said that on a question involving, as this does, the right of suffrage, party feelings ought to be altogether discarded. That, so far as he knew himself, he could conscientiously declare that he was influenced by no such feelings; and that he had voted to give Mr. Letcher the votes taken in Lancaster before 10 o'clock, and those given in the absence of the sheriff. He had voted against the admission of those which were given by the college students; yet he was free to acknowledge that he had some doubt as to the correctness of all the votes he had given, principally on account of the uncertainty of the facts. On the several questions relating to minors, nonresidents, &c. he had endeavored to vote as he deemed right, without the least regard to either of the parties; but he could not pretend to say that he had perfect confidence in the conclusions at which he had arrived. Whether in the majority or the minority, he had always found himself among gentlemen of high legal attainments, eminent talents, and, in every respect, much better qualified to decide than himself. Such being his situation, he was perfectly indifferent whether Mr. Moore or Mr. Letcher obtained the seat; he had no predilections to gratify; they were both gentlemen of the highest respectability, and stood on equal footing; either of them, he had no doubt, would do honor to himself as well as the district. Should the resolution of the member from North Carolina prevail, the candidates would return to the district unprejudiced by this investigation. Mr. Letcher, on the one hand, would have the “prima facie” evidence in his favor, of which he was deprived by the improper and highly exceptionable conduct of the deputy sheriff of Lincoln. While, on the other hand, Mr. Moore would have the report of the Committee of Elections in his behalf, and which every gentleman of this House would admit, afforded a strong presumption that he was duly elected, after the long time and assiduo ous attention that talented and respectable committee had devoted to the investigation. Mr. A. said that the session was now drawing rapidly to a close; we had but a few days before us, and were we to proceed in canvassing all the contested votes, when would this matter end? We had much important business, indispensable to be acted on, and little more than two weeks remained. Would it not, he asked, be the fairest, the safest, the most correct course to send back the election to the people, the source, of all power; they are capable, they are doubtless willing, to settle this controversy. That cowgressional district can gain little or nothing by either of those gentlemen taking his seat for the few remaining days of the session. If they return home to their constituents the qualified voters will decide between them, and this House will be spared the necessity of deciding a question which, to say the least of it, is one of a very doubtful character. Mr. A., in conclusion, observed that if a majority of the members believed they understood this case thoroughly, and were prepared to decide it, he would be perfectly satisfied that thay should reject the proposition now before the House; but if, like himself, they could not come to a satisfactory conclusion in their own minds who was duly elected, the proper course, in his opinion, was to declare the election void, for uncertainty and irregularity, and to let the people of the fifth congressional district determine who shall be their representative. If he were compelled to decide the main question, although he would do it with great reluctance, as it was so intricate as even to puzzle a Philadelphia lawyer, yet he
would not shrink from the performance of that duty, ac-
Mr. SUTHERLANI) believed he had shown, from the commencement, a willingness to meet the question. He should support the proposition without intending to stultify himself. He was willing to repose the power of deciding this question with the great fountain of power— the people themselves. The people of the fifth congressional district could settle it more accurately than this House could. They are better acquainted than we can be with both candidates and witnesses. We had a question arising as to the relative truth of two brothers by the name of Horine. The people of Kentucky know all about these Horines. They also know the sheriff whose conduct has given rise to so much remark. Not being afraid to meet the people, he was for sending it back. If either candidate should receive a seat, he would not retain it but twenty days. He would tell them to go home to their friends and lay the case before the people, in whose decision every confidence could be placed. Mr. WISE made some remarks in reply to Mr. BINxey, It was no difficulty as to principles, but doubt as to facts, which rendered a correct decision by the House impracticable. Twenty or thirty votes depended upon conflicting evidence, which it was impossible to decide upon. Mr. LiNCOLN opposed the proposition to commit, on the ground that the House was bound to discountenance the proceedings of the sheriff, who withheld the polibook, whose object was to send the election back to the people. He was unwilling that the House should be made an instrument in promoting the design. Mr. McKAY, aster a few remarks, expressed a willingness to modify his proposition by striking out the reason assigned in the resolution. The yeas and nays having been ordered— The question was taken on the motion to commit to the Committee of the Whole, with instructions, and carried: Ayes 113, noes 109. Mr. FILLMORE moved an adjournment; which was negatived: Ayes 100, noes 103. Mr. McKAY moved that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole. Mr. MARSHALL opposed the motion. The subject was not before the House; it had been committed, and there were many orders standing in Committee of the Whole before this, Mr. EVANS also contended that, being committed to the Committee of the Whole, it must take its rank among the orders of the day. It was not now in the power of the House to reach it. Mr. CLAYTON, Mr. MERCER, and Mr. WAYNE, also expressed their opinions on the question of order. Mr. WAYNE moved an adjournment. Mr. JONES, of Georgia, and Mr. WISE, submitted that the motion to adjourn was not in order. The CHAIR overruled the objection, The House then adjourned.
Thuns I AY, JUNE 12.
The bill from the Senate, to fix the northern boundary of the State of Ohio, coming up as the unfinished business, the motions pending thereon, being, viz: to commit the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary, and to postpone its consideration, and make it the special order of the day for Thursday next—Mr. SPEIGHT suggested the propriety of permitting the bill to lie on the table for the present. Mr. VINTON remarked that his only objection to the bill being laid on the table was, that there might not be an opportunity to get it up, or acted upon, this session. He desired that the subject, if postponed, should be made the order of the day for a day certain.
labor of investigation. mesogatio
Mr. LYON, of Michigan, contended that it was a fit subject for reference to the Committee on the Judiciary, he moved the following as a preamble to the resolution
Jusz 12, 1834.] Kentucky
Election. [H. of R.
and insisted on his motion to that effect. Mr. EWING, of Indiana, submitted a motion to lay the bill on the table, but which he subsequently withdrew in favor of Mr. W11.LIAMs, who advocated the propriety of sending the bill to the Committee on the Territories. Mr. VANCE said that, in order to terminate the difficulties felt on this subject between the State of Ohio and the Territory of Michigan, he thought a select committee, to consist of one member from each State, should be raised to consider this bill, and submitted a motion to that effect, , , Mr. Lyon had no objection to such a committee; only that, in this case, Ohio would be represented, whilst the Territory of Michigan would not be so. Mr. VANCE said that he would modify his motion by striking out Ohio. The question on the motion for a select committee, as proposed by Mr. Vasco, was then put and negatived. The question then being on the postponement of the consideration of the bill to Thursday next— Mr. GAMBLE addressed the House in favor of sending the subject to a select committee until the expiration of the morning hour, when, on motion of Mr. BOON, the House proceeded to the orders of the day.
THE KENTUCKY CONTESTED ELECTION.
The SPEAKER announced to the House that, on the previous evening, he had some doubts whether the election case, having been referred to the Committee of the Whole, was again the order of the day. However, on reference to the 90th rule, he was now of opinion that it was no longer the special order, but it was in the power of the House, he said, to take it up if they thought
roper. P ;: SUTHERLAND thereupon moved to make the subject the special order for this day. Mr. STEWAR T moved to make it the special order for Monday next. The question on the last motion being put, was negatived; and the other prevailed. so the House agreed to proceed to the immediate consideration of the subject; and, on motion of Mr. $UTHERLAND, resolved itself into Committee of the Whole thereon, Mr. HUB BARD in the chair. Mr. McKAY then moved the following resolutions: Resolved, That neither Thomas P. Moore nor Robert P. Letcher be permitted to take a seat in this House as the representative for the 5th congressional district of the State of Kentucky, and that said seat is now vacant. Resolved, That the Speaker of this House do notify the Governor of Kentucky that said seat is vacant. Mr.: WILDE objected to the phraseology of this resolution. Mr. McKAY maintained that it was substantially in conformity to the instructions of the House. Mr. SUTHERLAND proposed the following, so as to be strictly in the terms of the original instructions: Resolved, That there be a new election for a member of this House from the 5th congressional district in Kentucky, it being impracticable for this House to determine, with any certainty, who is the rightful representative of said district. Mr. McKAY then withdrew the resolutions proposed by him. The resolution proposed by Mr. SuthERLAxn was then agreed to; and thereupon the committee rose, and reported the same to the House for their concurrence. Mr. CLAYTON, of Georgia, said, as it was the evident determination of the House that this case should go back to the people for a new election, he desired that they should have a true statement of the matter, as appeared on the face of the proceedings upon it; for which purpose
reported to the House: Whereas, by the returns of the election for a representative of the 5th congressional district in the State of Kentucky, it appears that Robert P. Letcher had a majority of forty-nine votes; that the said election was contested by T. P. Moore, and the Committee of Elections, to whom the same was referred, reported to this House that there was an election, and that T. P. Moore was elected by a majority of forty-four votes of all the legal votes in said district. And whereas this House, by sundry resolutions, has added to, and substracted from, the votes of each party, in the following manners, to wit: From the majority as reported by the committee,
viz: - - - - 44 They have restored the votes given on the first day before Grant, 25, viz: To Letcher, - - 22 Moore, - - 3 —making maj. 19 25 They have restored the votes on the second day in the absence of the sheriff, 45, viz: To Letcher, - - 32 Moore, - - 13 —making maj. 19 Leaving Moore's majority 5 Restored to Letcher the votes of the Theological students, - - - 9 Restored to Moore, 1 - 8 Making Letcher's majority, • 2 Restored to Letcher the Salvisa vote, which had been taken from him and given to Moore, • 5 Taken from Moore the same, - • 5 15 Restored to Letcher the votes of Jessamine, • 3 15 Taken from Letcher on Mr. Pope's amendment, June 10, - - - - • 5 10 Taken from Letcher on Mr. Poor's amendment, June 11, . - - - - 4 6 Taken from Moore on MARshall’s amendment, June 11, to be added to Letcher, - • 5 11
Whereby it appears that Robt. P. Letcher received a majority of eleven votes of all the legal votes in said district. And whereas it appears, by motions now pending be. fore this House, that sundry other votes are yet in contro. versy between the parties, and the House having stopped the investigation upon those votes which were alleged to have been illegally received by T. P. Moore. Mr. MARDIS inquired if it was in order for him to move to lay the proposition of the member from Georgia [Mr. CLAytos] on the table; as, if it was, he should submit that motion; not, however, because he dreaded any effect from the paper itself, but that he considered the proposition itself a direct insult upon the majority of the House. Mr. CLAYTON. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. MARDIs] says my amendment is an insult to a majority of the House. Sir, it is the first time, among honorable
men, that I ever heard that the truth was offensive. My amendment contains an accurate history of the facts of the case, as they appear on the records of the House; and, consequently, is the the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; and, if that is insulting to the gentleman, I would hope that he is the only one in the House that would be insulted by that virtue. I regret that it should hurt his feelings; but, I repeat, I trust no other member will consider it an annoyance. The SPEAKER intimated that the proposition could only be received as a substitute for the resolution reported. Mr. Cl, AYTON desired to have it added as a preamble. The SPEAKER remarked that it was for the House to decide whether it should be so added. Mr. MARDIS objected to it altogether, and insisted upon his motion to lay the proposition on the table. The SPEAKER having decided the motion to lay on the table was not in order– Mr. WILDE hoped that his colleague would withdraw his preamble, and permit him to offer the following resolution; after which, he said, they could, if not acceded to, have a vote taken on the other proposition. Resolved, That Robert P. Letcher is entitled to a seat in this House, as a representative from the 5th congressional district of Kentucky. Mr. CLAYTON withdrew his proposition, substituting therefor the proposition of Mr. WILDE. The question recurring thereon, Mr. HARDIN rose to address the House, but gave way to Mr. SUTHERLAND, who rose to a question of order, viz: whether it was now in order to renew a proposition which had been substantially made by the member from New York, [Mr. Giller, but which had been decided by the Chair to be out of order. Mr. CHILTON called the member from Pennsylvania to order. He had no right to question the decision, not having taken any appeal. Mr. SUTHERLAND waived his point of order. ter which, Mr. HARDIN insisted, at some length, that the House was perfectly competent to decide the question, as it was its bounden duty to do. Mr. POPE contended for the propriety of sending the case back to the people. Mr. S McI). MoQRE moved that there be a call of the House; which being agreed to, the House was called, and 216 members answered to their names. After the usual proceedings, in the reception of excuses, &c. a motion was made to suspend all further proceedings in the call; which was carried by yeas and nays, 148 to 65. The question was then put on the amendment moved by Mr. CLAxton, declaring Mr. Letcher entitled to a seat in the House, and decided in the negative : Yeas 1 12, nays 114, as follows: YEAS.–Messrs. John Quincy Adams, Ileman Allen, John J. Allen, Chilton Allan, Archer, Ashley, Banks, Barber, Barnitz, Barringer, Baylies, Beaty, James M. Bell, Binney, Briggs, Bull, Burd, Burges, Cage, Campbell, Chambers, Chilton, Choate, William Clark, Clayton, Clowney, Corwin, Coulter, Crane, Crockett, Darlington, W. R. Davis, Davenport, Deberry, Deming, Denny, Dickson, Duncan, Evans, Edward Everett, H. Everett, Ewing, Felder, Fillmore, Foster, Philo C. Fuller, Fulton, Gamble, Garland, Gholson, Gilmer, Gordon, Gorham, Graham, Grayson, Grennell, Griffin, Hiland Hall, Hard, Hardin, James Harper, Hazletine, Heath, Hiester, Jabez W. Huntington, Jackson, William Cost Johnson, King, Kinnard, ..". Lay, Lewis, Lincoln, Love, Martindale, Marshall, McCarty, McComas, McKennan, Mercer,
Milligan, Moore, Patton, Pinckney, Potts, Ramsay, Reed, Rencher, Selden, William B. Shepard, Aug. H. Shepperd, Wm. Slade, Sloane, Spangler, Steele, Stewart, William P. Taylor, Philemon Thomas, Tompkins, Tur. ner, Tweedy, Vance, Vinton, Watmough, Wayne, Ed. i). White, Frederick Whittlesey, Elisha Whittlesey, Wilde, Wlliams, Wilson, Young—112. NAYS--Messrs. John Adams, William Allen, Anthony, Beale, Bean, Beardsley, Beaumont, Blair, Bockee, Bodle, Boon, Bouldin, Brown, Bunch, Burns, Bynum, Cambreleng, Carmichael, Carr, Casey, Chaney, Chinn, S. Clark, Clay, Coffee, Connor, Cramer, Day, Dickerson, Dickinson, Dunlap, Forester, Fowler, William K. Fuller, Galbraith, Gillet, Joseph Hall, Halsey, Hamer, Hannegan, J. M. Harper, Harrison, Hathaway, Hawkins, Hawes, Henderson, Howell, Hubbard, Abel Huntington, Inge, Jarvis, Richard M. Johnson, N. Johnson, Cave Johnson, Seaborn Jones, Benjamin Jones, Kavanagh, Lane, Lansing, Lea, Lee, Leavitt, Loyall, Lyon, Lytle, Abijah Mann, J. K. Mann, Mardis, Moses Mason, McIntire, McKay, McKim, McKinley, McLene, McVean, Miller, Henry Mitchell, Robert Mitchell, Muhlenberg, Murphy, Osgood, Page, Parks, Parker, Patterson, Dutee J. Pearce, Peyton, F. Pierce, Pierson, Plummer, Polk, Pope, Schenck, Schley, Shinn, Charles Slade, Smith, Spcight, Standefer, Stoddert, Sutherland, William Taylor, Francis Thomas, Thomson, Turrill, Vanderpoel, Van Houten, Wagener, Ward, Wardwell, Webster, Whallon, C. P. White, Wise —114. So the House refused to declare Mr. Letcher entitled to a seat. The question then recurring on concurring with the report of the Committee of the Whole, which declares neither of the claimants entitled to the seat, and sends back the election to the people, on the ground that the House was unable to decide between the candidates— Mr. A DAMS moved to strike out the last clause of the report, which related to the inability of the House to decide, as being unnecessary, dishonorable to the House, and inconsistent with the vote just given. Mr. WISE opposed the motion; and it was negatived. Mr. CLAYTON now moved the following, as a preamble to the report, (being the same as he had before moved, by way of amendment.) Mr. SUTHERLAND objected to the preamble, as not in order, but the Chair being inclined to the opinion that it was in order, lest it to the decision of the House. Mr. WISE objected to the preamble, on the ground that it did not declare the whole truth, and that it stated a falsehood. It did not state who had agreed to the votes recited; and it ascribed the resolution to those votes as the ground of it; which was false. Mr. ThomlSON insisted that the preamble must be considered, if at all, after the resolution, and not before it. The CIIAIR considered it as an amcndment, and the refore in order. Mr. LYON, of Kentucky, moved to lay the preamb'e c n the table, The CHAl IR decided that this could not be done, un, less the resolution itself should also be laid on the table. Mr. MILLER, of Pennsylvania, objected to the preamble, as not agreeing with the resolution, but being directly repugnant to it: it was not logical, Mr. DAVIS, of South Carolina, quoted the manual in support of the decision of the Chair. Mr. CLAYTON replied to Mr. Wise, refusing to understand his language as intended to apply to himself personally. Mr. WISE explained, and disclaimed such a meaning. Mr. CLAYTON then vindicated the preamble as stating nothing but truth ; every item of it was taken from the
Journal. It did not show a good reason for the resoluJuxe 13, 1834.]
tion, he could not help that. It told the truth. And he wished the country to see the state of the facts. On the subject of logic, Mr. C. should not apply for lessons to Pennsylvania. Mr. JONES suggested to Mr. C. to add that the House had decided that Mr. Letcher was not entitled to a seat. Mr. CLAYTON said he would accept this with pleasute; and he so modified his preamble. Mr. WISE insisted on his objections to the preamble, considering it as involving an insult to the House, such as he should not suffer to himself personally, either in or out of the House. Mr. BURGES replied, commenting with much severity on the threatening language of Mr. Wise, and then argued to prove that the preamble did state the only true ground on which the resolution proceeded, unless there were other reasons which gentlemen were ashamed to bring to the light. After a reply from Mr. Wise, Mr. ANTHONY replied to the allusion, by Mr. ClayTox, to the logic of Pennsylvania, reminding that gentleman of the change in his own reasonings on the subject of a certain marble palace in Pennsylvania, and advising another visit and another lesson. Mr. CLAYTON, after returning thanks for the invitation, declined complying, as the Legislature of Pennsylvania had changed its logic still more than he had done, decrying now, as a horrid monster what it had, when he was formerly in that State, cried up as the greatest of public benefits. . [Much merriment was produced by this repartee, and the gentlemen shook hands upon the strength of it.] Mr. SPANGLER demanded the yeas and nays; which were ordered. Mr. HARDIN suggested that there was a slight numerical error in some of the figures in the preamble. Mr. CLAYTON consented to withdraw the preamble; whereupon it was immediately moved by Mr. GARLAND. Mr. CLAYTON modified it, so as to correct the error. The yeas and nays were then taken, and stood as follows: Yeas 72, nays 137. So the preamble was rejected. The original resolution, as reported from the Commit. tee of the Whole, was then adopted: Yeas 114, nays 103. Mr. CHILTON ALLAN wished to move an amendment, fixing the seal of reprobation on the conduct of Alfred Hocker, the sheriff who had abducted the poll. book of Garrard county; but a motion to adjourn having intervened, it could not be introduced but by two-thirds. Mr. A. therefore did not press it. The rest of the day was consumed in considering and passing a bill for the relief of Edmund Brooke, of George. town, to enable him to bring two negro boys into the District, after the time restricted by law had expired, that they might be in his family with their mother, instead of being sold to negro dealers. After repeated motions to postpone the bill indefinitely, to a day certain, and to lay it on the table, and after a debate of the character which always occurs when the subject of slavery is touched in the House, the bill was passed by yeas and nays, 106 to 47. The House then adjourned.
FR in Ay, Jux E 13. pUpLIC DEPOSITES.
The following resolution, submitted some time since by Mr. J. Q. Ad Axis, coming up for consideration:
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be directcd to lay before the House the names of the presidents, cashiers, directors, stockholders, lawyers, and solicitors, of all the banks selected by him as depositories of the public moneys, in the place of the Bank of the United
States, and its branches; together with the amount of stock in said banks held by each stockholder, and the amount of debt due by each president, cashier, and di. rector, of each of the banks to the said bank, at the time when it was selected as a depository, and at this time; With Mr. Polk’s amendment thereto, viz: Resolved, That the Secretary also communicate to this House the amount of debts due by the president, cashier, and directors of the Bank of the United States to said bank at this time, or at any time within one year last past, and also the names of the lawyers and solicitors of the Bank of the United States and branches, and the amount of debt due by each to said bank at this time, or at any time within one year last past: To which Mr. Braty moved the following, as an amendment to the amendment of Mr. Polk: Be it further resolved, That the Secretary of the Treas. ury also inform the House of Representatives whether thc President of the United States, heads of Departments, and Treasurer, have been in the habit of keeping their private accounts in the Branch Bank of the United States in the City of Washington; and at what time did they, or either of them, cease to keep their accounts in said branch bank— Mr. BEATY said he could assure the honorable member from Tennessee that, when he had offered his amendment, it was not from any unkind feeling towards the persons who were named in it, but it was solely owing to a rumor, which was in general circulation and belief, that although the President and the heads of the Departments were in the habit of denouncing the bank as an unsafe depository for the funds of the public, yet that they had not hesitated to place their own private funds in the Branch Bank of the United States here, and which they had hesitated to place in the District bank chosen for the costody of the public deposites; thus evincing, for so much, their real opinion as to the general safety of one institution, in preference to that of the other, for this purpose. Under such circumstances, then, he had hoped that the honorable member from Tennessee would, instead of throwing obstacles in the way, have rejoiced at the opportunity presented to him; and, by aiding him in the inquiry as to these facts, have, on the one hand, placed the subject in a proper point of view, by disproof of the rumor, or, on the other hand, the country would, as he contended that they ought, be informed that the President had erroneously made charges against the credit of that institution. They were disproved by the fact that he had lodged his own funds there for safe keeping, when he would not place there the money of the public. However, be that as it may, his friend, the member from Ten. nessee, in making his comment on the proposition for this inquiry, was pleased to remark, that as he himself was willing to go the whole hog for inquiry, so the honorable member expressed his hope that he, (Mr. B.) coming from a whole-hog State, would not refuse to have the inquiry of that character. He was ready to admit the charge of coming from a State where many whole hogs were raised, and good ones, too; and, further, that it was a State in which there were some shoats raised, and good ones, also. Mr. Poi.K rose to say that he had not made the remark in any offensive sense, but simply in stating this, that he was willing to go the whole hog, to illustrate that he desired to have inquiry of an extended character. Mr. BEATY resumed. He would receive the apology, and in return would express his views with precisely the same good feeling towards the honorable member. When interrupted, he was about to say, in reply to his observation, that as he said “he was willing to go the whole hog,” he was bound to believe him; and, as a party man, he would admit that he must be therefore a wholehog gentleman. But he could assure him, that although