tory and their families, which were principally destroyed. Thirty or forty cords of wood, it is said, were likewise burnt.

Since the above was in type, the fire is supposed to have been the act of an incendiary.

ANOTHER FIRE AT NEW HAVEN.

From the New York Journal of Commerce.

LAST night, between the hours of eleven and twelve o'clock, an alarm was given by the watch at New Haven, and the fire was found to proceed from the Fire Wood Depository of Yale College, which was consumed with astonishing rapidity, threatening destruction to the Trumbull Gallery, College Hall, Laboratory, &c.

The fire, like the one on Sunday evening, is supposed to have been caused by incendiaries.

A TOWN BURNED.

From the Charleston Mercury.

WE copy the following from the Charleston Mercury:

Distressing Conflagration.-The town of Monrovia, in Gadsden county, we regret to learn, says the Tallahasse Watchman of the sixteenth inst., has been entirely consumed by fire, with the exception of a kitchen and hen-house. The fire occurred when all the inhabitants were absent or asleep; and the particulars, therefore, cannot be arrived at. It is supposed to be the work of an incendiary. The church, academy, banking-house, post-office, and exchange are all gone. We learn that most of the property was uninsured. Suspicion rests upon the cashier of the Monrovia bank as the probable incendiary, as it is believed he embezzled a large amount of the funds of that institution. The ruin is so entire, that doubts are entertained whether the town will ever recover from the shock.

Charleston, June 9,-5, P. M.

THREE more attempts to set fire were made yesterday, but were discovered in time to prevent any damage.

INCENDIARIES AGAIN.

From the Boston Gazette.

A most diabolical attempt was made last Tuesday evening, between nine and ten o'clock, to set fire to the large wooden building in Peck Lane, commonly known by the name of "the colleges," and said to be occupied by about forty-five families. A woman went into the cellar for a pail of water about half-past nine, and was immediately passed by a man who came from under the stairway. On examination, it was found he had taken a large quantity of cooper's chips from a pile in the cellar, and placed them, together with a quantity of common matches, under the stairway, and was no doubt in the act of setting fire to them when the woman made her appearance. He was dressed in a dark

frock coat. Three men who kept watch the remainder of the night, were attacked by three others with brick-bats, but the latter immediately afterwards disappeared.

HOSPITAL BURNT AS A NUISANCE.

From the Vicksburg Register.

THE small-pox hospital was last night burnt to the ground. No doubt was entertained but that it was the work of an incendiary, and possibly may be accounted for by the fact, that the neighbours in that section have been complaining of it for a length of time as a great nuisance.

APPENDIX VII.

OUTRAGES IN CONGRESS-LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES-COURTS OF

JUSTICE, ETC.

MORE DISGRACEFUL SCENES AT WASHINGTON.

Extract to the Editor, dated Washington, May 14, 1832.

Now it was thought that the House would proceed to business. How vain the expectation! Mr. Cooke, of Ohio, got up, presented another case of " privilege" to the House, and got them again into as pretty a bit of a hurricane as I ever saw. Doctor Davis, of South Carolina, sent a letter to Mr. Cooke, demanding an explanation of some question when he was a witness. Mr. Cooke took it for a challenge for "words spoken in debate," and hence he made the motion. A resolution was offered for raising a committee to inquire into and investigate this "breach of privilege. On this question, a violent personal debate arose, which would, for intemperance of language and wholesale abuse of private character, absolutely disgrace the lowest porter-house or clubhouse, in the lowest place in the lowest city of the lowest country in the world. Messrs. Stanberry, Cooke, Burgess, of R. I., and most especially Mr. Arnold, of Te, took a very active and violent stand in this debate. The question was seldom touched-personal character was assailed-most violently attacked-low insinuations thrown out-threats and denunciations fulminated-attacks made on individuals, and even the members broke through all rules and orders, and assailed each other. With the greatest difficulty could the speaker keep them to the question. Stanberry was violent, Burgess more so; but Arnold out-heroded Herod. He assailed in the most violent language, and most unbecoming gesticu

lations, Houston, and particularly Major Heard, with whom he had had a quarrel or brawl in the avenue a few days since. A newspaper controversy had taken place, which you must have seen, in which they abused each other very heartily, and very justly, no doubt. Arnold introduced this brawl into his speech, and spoke against Heard in the most violent tone and gesture.

After a long debate, the question was taken, and the resolution negatived. This was the morning's work in the House; now for the afternoon's business out of the House.

At the very foot of the great marble steps of the western entrance to the capitol, a scene took place which beggars description for its atrocity, madness, and disgracefulness. Heard, who had been attacked so violently on the floor of the House by Arnold in the morning, replied to him in the afternoon on this spot, by making a desperate attempt upon the life of the member, while he was descending the steps, surrounded by the whole house of representatives. Heard went up to Arnold, after the adjournment of the House, about four o'clock, in the passage to the outer gate of the grounds surrounding the capitol, and after some incoherent words uttered like a madman, presented a long pistol, and fired it at Arnold. Arnold sprung upon him like a tiger, knocked the pistol out of his hand, raised his sword cane, and fell upon him with several blows in the most infuriated manner. Heard gave way, was soon covered with blood, fell down, and received several violent plunges from Arnold's sword cane. The members were standing around in every direction: some interfered; many vociferated; great excitement prevailed, and the affair was over in a few minutes. Arnold carried off the pistol under a high state of excited feeling. The members were equally excited, collected in groups, separated, and then walked down the avenue to their boarding-houses.

It was supposed at first that Heard had been killed; but in a few minutes he got up, went round to the brook in the neighbourhood, washed the blood off his face, and returned down the avenue with his head tied up in a handkerchief.

Such I believe is a true account of this disgraceful affair and this disgraceful day. What will foreign nations think of our morals and manners? How will they estimate that propriety which ought to distinguish our debates, and that morality which should characterise our manners! In the inside of the capitol the public time and public money are wasted upon attacks on private character both of citizens and members; and outside the capitol, violent members are attacked and shot at by equally violent and blood-thirsty citizens. What is the cause of such a state of things? What is the origin of such humiliating scenes? The utter degradation into which the debates of both houses are fallen. Instead of transacting the business of the people, the whole time of certain members of Congress is spent in vindictive assaults upon each other, or upon persons not members of Congress. Public measures are neglected for the pursuit of private defamation; public business gives way to piquant debates on private character and reputation. The bullies and blackguards in the House (pardon the terms) threaten the bullies and blackguards out of the House; the one assaults with a speech; the other with a pistol. Thus we go from worse to worse. Gentlemanly language is discardedpropriety of demeanour in disgrace-elegance and urbanity completely in

the shade. Alas, for our day! Ever since the period when John C. Calhoun, as presiding officer, permitted John Randolph to defame, on the floor of the Senate, the private character of Henry Clay, and Henry Clay, under the influence of passion, attempted the life of John Randolph, have the manner and moods of public debates in Congress been sinking and sinking, till it has reached

In the lowest deep a lower deep.'

Enquirer of Philadelphia,

THE AFFAIR IN THE COMMITTEE-ROOM.

From the Globe.

Extract from the Journal of the Committee of Investigation, J. Garland, Chairman.

Wednesday, Jan. 25, 1837.

By Mr. PEYTON.-Question 15. - Did you receive any letter or recommendation from Roger B. Taney, or did he in any manner countenance or encourage you in applying for the agency contemplated, or did he positively refuse to recommend, receive, or countenance you in that capacity, while he was at the head of the Treasury department?

Mr. WHITNEY.-Answer.-I decline answering this interrogatory; more particularly as the individual propounding it has asserted, positively and publicly, that the substance of the latter part of it is true, beginning with "or did he," &c., therefore, being the party accused, I am not a proper witness. I think, in justice, that the individual who has made the allegation should be called to produce his proof.

Mr. Peyton thus explains the subsequent occurrence, as given in the Intelligencer:

"I did not wish to enter into personal altercation with one who is as completely shielded from the notice of all honourable men by his infamy as a mad dog is by his hydrophobia. But, sir, he accompanied that answer with a scowl, a frown, an insulting look of defiance, directed boldly to me personally, which perhaps no one else then saw. I appealed, Sir, immediately to the Chair, to know if the witness should be permitted to insult me. I walked up to him, and said I would teach him better than to insult me; that I would let him know that I required no constitutional privilege to chastise him if he dared to insult me; that, if he did, I would put him to death on the spot. Sir, I used language which was harsh, for I was excited, as any man would have been who has a soul within him fit to be saved. The Chair called to order, and I took my seat. He says I drew a pistol upon him; it is false. After I sat down he rose and began again; I walked to him again, and he, at that moment, seemed as if he was about to use some weapon: he had his hand in his pocket, and when I walked up to him I put my hand in my bosom, but I drew nothing from it. Every one present believed, from his attitude, he was armed with deadly weapons. My friend from Virginia (Mr. Wise) interposed, the witness was withdrawn, and the committee unanimously passed a resolution censuring his insulting behaviour."

Mr. Wise's version is as follows:!

"As soon as the answer was read I looked at my friend, and saw he

was flushed with excitement; his face beamed with indignation; no one could mistake his feelings. He first addressed the Chairman, by saying, 'Mr. Chairman, I wish you distinctly to inform the witness that he is not to insult me here.' He was proceeding, when I arose, and remarked, Mr. Chairman, the d-d insolence of this witness is insufferable, and has been borne long enough.' He had, in fact, Mr. Speaker, declined to answer one question because it was inquisitorial,' and because another was inquisitorial' he declined to answer it, and had rung all the changes upon that word till, if reiteration could convince and supply the place of truth, one might have believed, from mere repetition, that the committee was what it has been denounced to be, worse than a Spanish Inquisition! Sir, he had received his cue.

"But to proceed. My friend rose as I uttered these words respecting the witness, put me back with his arm, and said, 'This is my business, Wise, not yours.' And he walked straight up to the witness where he sat, and said to him nearly in these words-I will endeavour to give his very words, however harsh: You talk about my shielding myself behind my constitutional privileges. Now, I tell you that I claim no constitutional privileges to protect me from your insults in my presence; and, you d -d thief and robber, if you dare to insult me here or elsewhere, to my face, I will put you to death on the spot.' The chairman had called me to order, and I had sat down; he immediately called my friend back to his seat. For it is but due, Mr. Speaker, to the chairman to say that he has done his duty, in all respects, on that committee. My friend took his seat, when the witness rose, and began to say, 'Mr. Chairman, I have been summoned to appear before this committee, and I claim its protection.' He did not finish the sentence before my friend rose, and told him to sit down. 'Sit down, sir; you have no right to speak here but in writing, and you shall not utter a word; if you speak another word I will'- -Sir, I do not remember here exactly what he said he would do; he used many harsh epithets, such as 'd- -d scoundrel.' The witness uttered not a word, but he was standing, and immediately advanced his left foot, and put his right hand in his pantaloons' right pocket. I was standing then immediately behind my friend, and, seeing Whitney assume this attitude, I walked quietly around the end of the table, near to Whitney's left side. I expected him to draw a deadly weapon on my friend. I watched the motion of that right arm, the elbow of which could be seen by me; and, had it moved one inch, he had died upon the spot! That was my determination. Let me not be misunderstood or misrepresented. I mean to say that, if he had drawn his deadly weapon on my friend, it should never have done its execution. I considered my friend in imminent danger, and stood prepared to arrest it, to prevent his life from being taken by a villain who wore every appearance, and assumed the very attitude, of an insidious assassin. Happily I had no occasion to interpose, but, in a friendly manner, to force my friend away, who had, seeing the position of the witness, put his hand in his bosom. I stepped in between them, took hold of Mr. Peyton, caught him by his waistcoat, and closed it. I told him Whitney's blood was not worth spilling, and was not fit to stain any man; he was not worthy of his notice. My friend sat down, saying, 'Yes, he is worth my notice when he comes to my face and insults me. I would notice any dd dog.' The chairman expostulated