side of the picture? Ought he not to think of whole families, leaping in the dead of night from amidst the flames of their own dwelling? Ought he not to have favored the House with this picture, as well as with those which he had described so eloquently? Ought he not to direct his compassion to these innocent sufferers, as much as to the culprit? The gentleman had argued against the settled opinion of the whole world. It was needless to answer him, since he was already met by the arguments of all writers, and the experience of all legislators. [H. of R. He replied to the cases of improper executions which had been cited by the gentleman from Louisiana. The person condemned in Vermont, had been convicted on his own voluntary confession of the murder; and though those who were executed in New Orleans might have been innocent of the crime of piracy, some of those who escaped punishment on that occasion, within less than six weeks, went out to sea and committed a murder on the captain of a vessel from Kennebunk. Mr. LIVINGSTON rose in reply, and observed, that the opinion of the gentleman from Massachusetts would Mr. L. said he felt every respect for the name of Brad- have great weight with him, was he not obliged, by the ford, and considered the opinions of that excellent man nature of the case, to settle the general principle before as forming very high authority. But it must be remem- he could vote on the present bill. Gentlemen say, perbered, that Bradford wrote, when, what might be called mit this bill to pass and the punishment or death to be the Penitentiary mania was at its full height in Penn- inflicted, and afterwards discuss the general principle sylvania, and when that system was in the full tide of whether death should ever be inflicted. This is neither experiment. Experience had, since that time, every more nor less than asking me to be guilty of murder, where shewn, that that system did not produce the ex- since I think that death ought not to be inflicted at all. pected results; and the current of public opinion was I cannot divide the question. I cannot say, let this bill now running fast the other way. He must be permitted go, and to-morrow I will inquire, nor can any others say to correct an error of the gentleman from Louisiana, and so who entertain a doubt on the lawfulness of capital to defend the cause of a virgin queen. It was not true punishments. Mr. L. observed that he must have been that capital punishments had abounded so much in the greatly misunderstood, or honorable gentlemen certainreign of Elizabeth. On the contrary, her laws were far ly would not ask him to go in direct contradiction to the milder than those of the preceding reign. It was under principles he had advanced. The gentleman from MasHenry Eighth that human blood had streamed in such sachusetts, (Mr. DwiGHT,) had said that it was not surtorrents, and it was computed that seventy-two thou-prising that the United States' code should contain a sand capital punishments had been inflicted in thirty-six longer list of capital crimes than the codes of the states, years, making an average of two thousand executions in because its jurisdiction extended farther. This was not a year. The argument after all comes to a single point. so. Until the present bill was introduced, it did not go The question is not whether we will now enact a new so far. The divine law had been referred to, in which system of penal law, but simply whether we will relax God says, whoso shed man's blood, by man shall his blood the punishment for arson. He asked whether this was be shed; but to whom does God say this? To us? No. safe; he insisted on the necessity of securing the public He says it to the Jews: and, though with that reverence safety. He dwelt on the dangerous nature united to the it becomes us always to feel towards divine revelation, facility of the crime, and the impossibility of guarding we must acknowledge that such a regulation was suitaagainst it, except by the terrors of a severe punishment. ble for the Jews. It does not, therefore, follow, that it The bill, he insisted, created but a few capital offences, is binding on us. It might as well be said that we are and these were such as every country punished with bound to keep the passover. But, what was done in death. It did not enlarge, but diminish the previous num- the case of the first murderer? Here we have a case on ber. He repelled the idea of abolishing it out of mercy record. to the criminal-insisted that the instances of mistaken condemnation were extremely few, and such as could not well be guarded against; that they did not happen more frequently with respect to this punishment than others; and that the argument, from the irremediable nature of the punishment, if it proved any thing, proved too much. No punishment could be completely recalled, and so none whatever must be inflicted! The disgrace of a public whipping could not be effectually removed, and there were men who would prefer death to the en-House; denied that all books on the subject were against durance of that disgrace. A man may be whipped through mistake, when innocent-but are we, there fore, to abstain from all punishment? Was death inflicted there as the punishment of murder? No! a mark was set upon the murderer, and he was turned loose, and when he expressed a fear of being killed by others, it was expressly told him that that mark should be his protection. Mr. L. disclaimed all intention to lessen the offence, or argue in favor of the offender. His arguments were only in favor of the expediency of a particular mode of punishment. He disa vowed all intention of addressing the feelings of the him; insisted that the experience of legislation, so far as it went, was in his favor; and, in reply to the argument of Mr. LIVERMORE, he professed himself as much opMr. WEBSTER, of Massachusetts, said he had been posed to whipping, and to all punishments which were instructed and gratified by the observations of the gen-irremediable in their nature, as he did to the punishtleman from Louisiana; but he put it to the candor of ment of death. Imprisonment was remedial. The prithat gentleman to say, whether it was expedient to go soner might be released, and his sentence reversed. at large into the discussion of a general principle, and He again asked why must death be retained, entreated then confine its application to one case. The principle for an answer, and said that, if any gentleman would give was one on which there would be great diversity of him a good and sufficient reason, he should be satisfied. opinion; which, if adopted, must alter many laws, and He did not feel the force of the argument which said which could as well, and better, be discussed on a gene- that, because there were twenty cases of capital punral bill, providing that where death is now prescribed, ishment, therefore there must be twenty-one. Arson some other punishment should be substituted in its was a crime which, in general, could only be proved by place, according to the different degrees of criminality circumstantial evidence, and on such evidence men involved. would not convict the offender if death was to follow; but they would if a milder punishment was substituted for it. It had been said that arson was punished by death in all the states. He had examined that point, and found that in eleven states out of the twenty-four, this was not the case, and even where it was punished by death, in most instances there was a proviso requiring that some person should have lost their life in conse If the general question must now be gone into at large, the measure itself must fail, and a bill so much needed would have to be postponed to another session. He should, therefore, abstain altogether from the general argument, and he hoped that the House wou pass the bill, since its provisions did not go further, if so far, as laws already in force. VOL. 1.-23 H. of R. & Sen.] United States' Penal Code.-Internal Trade with Mexico. [JAN. 25, 26, 1825. quence of the burning. None could feel a greater horror of the crime than he did; but the question to be determined was, shall this House, because the crime is great, inflict a punishment improper in its principle, and uncertain in its effect? to be marked out a road from the line of the state of Missouri, to the confines of New Mexico. On motion of Mr. LLOYD, of Mass. to strike out the second section of the bill, (which provides for marking out that part of the road in the Mexican territory,) Mr. COOK, of Illinois, moved to amend the amendment of Mr. LIVINGSTON, by striking out the fine of five thousand dollars, and substituting a fine not exceeding the cost of prosecution, and he supported the amendment, on the ground that experience had convinced him, that where fine is united with corporeal punishment, the effect is to punish the innocent family of the offender, or, by inducing fraud, to involve others in his crime. Where no fraud succeeded, and the crime took effect, and ab-hundred miles of the contemplated road are within the sorbed the property of the delinquent, he found himself, on coming out of prison, in a situation calculated to lead him to new crimes. Mr. C. went into some general remarks in opposition to capital punishments, and thought that, of all countries, this presented the most favorable opportunity for the experiment of the dispensing with them altogether. Mr. LIVINGSTON approved of the ground taken by the gentleman from Illinois, and adopted his amendment as a modification of his own, and the question then being on the amendment as modified, Mr. KREMER, of Pennsylvania, observed, that nothing but a strong sense of duty would induce him, at this late hour, to trouble the House. He thought that in a question of this kind, all feeling ought to be avoided, and he wished that the gentleman from Louisiana had not addressed the House in so eloquent a manner in behalf of the criminal suffering death. As to the question of policy there could be no doubt. The case was perfectly clear. The experience of every country and every age had declared it, and should we not profit by that experience? The gentleman himself says that there was a time when the capital punishments in other countries were as few as they now are in our own. Why then have they been increased? Because they have been found unavoidable. As to the right of society it is most clear. The individual makes war against the community, and the country treats lim as they would treat any other enemy. As to the objection from persons sometime suffering innocently, it might as well be said that you must not have a razor to shave your beard, because, forsooth, you might by chance cut your throat. What does the penitentiary system after all amount to? Experience had demonstrated that it produced a school for crime. Profligates were collected from every corner of the country, and shut up in one jail, and thus came out greater villains than they went in-they scarcely got home, before they committed new crimes. He quoted the instance of a man in Pennsylvania who had been pardoned out of the State Prison, who exhibited his pardon in triumph all along the road, and, before he reached his home, committed the same crime for which he was put in. He believed the system to be founded in a mistaken feeling of humanity towards the wrong doer. The gentleman from Louisiana has, indeed, told us that, as the thing is conducted in this country, hanging is quite a frolic, and that the criminal goes off like a saint. This surely was a strong argument for multiply. ing capital punishments, because we have not too many Mr. CHANDLER said, that he had not yet been satis. fied that Congress had a right to take the money from the pockets of the people of the United States, to lay out or expend in what is termed internal improvements, that is, to make roads and canals within the limits of any state in the Union. Gentlemen may tell me that this proposition does not come within the objection, as it is without the limits of any state; true, from five to seven limits of the United States, and probably at least three hundred miles of it, not only without the limits of any state, but out of the limits of the United States, and within the territory of another power, to wit, that of Mexico. As I before observed, I have never been able to find, in the constitution of the United States, authori. ty given to Congress to lay out and make roads within the limits of any state in the Union, and there would, at least, be as much difficulty in finding authority for taking the money of the people, and therewith to mark out or survey roads within the dominions of another sovereign power. By the bill, sir, I perceive that we are to provide by treaty with the Indians, for the right of passing unmolested through the territory which they inhabit, and if those Indians should afterwards prove refractory, or take it into their heads to refuse us a passage through the country which they inhabit, why then, I suppose, we must submit to their caprice, or make war upon them, within the territory of Mexico. For, I presume, the line of this road will not be the line which divides that part of the country which is inhabited by Indians, from that which is not; nor is it probable that the line between the United States and Mexico will divide the country which is occupied by the Indians from that which is not. Viewing the whole subject as I do, sir, I must be better satisfied of the propriety of the measure than I now am, or I cannot vote for the bill. Mr. BENTON observed, he could answer the gentleman's objection with great ease. They were only going to treat with the Indians within the territories of the United States, and afterwards mark out the road through the Mexican territories, with their consent. Mr. LLOYD, of Massachusetts, asked, whether it would not be acceptable to the honorable mover of this bill, to limit the intended road to the boundary of the United States? There was very great difference between making a road in our own territory and in that of another power, even with their own consent. He thought there was a strong impropriety in making roads for other people. However, he wished no argument on the subject, but would move to strike out the second section of the bill. The second section is as follows: "And be it further enacted, That the President of the United States be, and he hereby is, authorized to cause the marking of the said road to be continued from the boundary line of the United States to the frontier of New Mexico, under such regulations as may be agreed upon for that purpose between the Executive of the United States and the Mexican government." Mr. LOWRIE said, if this appropriation could be asked for at all, it was on the ground of protecting the commerce of the United States; and if that principle were admitted, it would require some ingenuity to show why an appropriation, which was to be expended beyond the territory of the United States, should not be made to the West, when so much was doing, and had been done, for the East? He adverted to the sums annually expended in keeping a fleet in the Mediterranean for the protection of commerce; and mentioned, as a case strongly in point, the negotiation opened by the Executive, during the last summer, with foreign governments, respecting the erection of a light-house on one of the West India islets. Mr. BARTON said, this bill amounted to nothing more than a declaration by Congress of a power exercised by the President of the United States in the case just mentioned. The duty and the power of the Executive will remain precisely the same; as the bill merely requests the President to cause a thing to be done, under certain regulations, which he had the power to do without the request. He could see nothing in this section incompatible with the rights or dignity of the government.He hoped, therefore, the section would not be stricken out. Mr. HOLMES, of Maine, thought there was no constitutional objection to the proposed measure, as the government might, if they thought proper, make a road in the territory of a foreign power, as well as within our own, provided they obtained the consent of that power. The Mexican government were equally interested with the United States in the prosperity of this trade, and therefore, if they thought it worth their while, they would and ought to do their part. It would be sufficient if we were to mark out the road to the boundary line, and let them meet us there. We were, in his opinion, a little premature in offering to mark out a road through the whole line, in their territory as well as our own, and then to ask for permission to mark it out beyond the boundary. The Mexican government must be aware of the value of the trade, and if they did not choose to meet us, it would be a fair presumption that they did not want to trade with us. He should, therefore, vote for the amendment. Mr. VAN BUREN thought that the government was called upon to afford the same protection to these people, who were engaged in a foreign trade, that was extended to those of the other parts of the Union. The only questions were, whether this trade existed, and whether it was a trade according to the laws and Constitution. If so, they have a right to call on the government for protection; provided, it could be given without infringing on any rights. The means proposed were, to mark out a road, and treat with the Indians for a safe passage. The motion to amend the bill was founded, he thought, on a mistaken view of the subject. It was not to make a road, that the appropriation was asked for, but to mark out, merely, the way the traders should go. This was to be done by negotiation with the Indians on this side of the line, and by negociation with the Mexican government, on the other side; and the appropriation of $30,000, was for this purpose. He did not apprehend, therefore, that any valid objection could exist. They were not going into a foreign country to make a road, but to treat with the Indians, and mark the way they should travel. Mr. MACON did not think this a matter of great importance. Most of the estates, said he, in my part of the country, were originally made by trading with the Indians, and that trade was carried on by traces; but we have got grander than our ancestors, and can't trade with the Indians now without roads being made. I don't care, said he, for precedents; if they are good, I am will ing to follow them; if not, I won't regard them. They are, generally, good or bad, as they happen to suit or oppose our wishes. The case of the road made by Mr. Jefferson, was among Indians comparatively civilized, who had some notions of property; but the road proposed now to be marked out, would pass through tribes perfectly wild, who, as soon as they see a white man, think of nothing but to fight and kill him, if they are able. There was nothing that could be secured by negotiating with these wild and savage people. Make what bargain you please with them, they will continue to commit depredations on your traders, whenever they see a good opportunity. It would, therefore, do no [Senate. good to treat with them. As to the Spaniards, with whom this trade was carried on, Mr. M. said, they may have a great deal of money, but, generally, money and knowledge went together; and, though he could not say any thing of their character himself, the description given of them, yesterday, by the gentleman from Missouri, was not very favorable. But, Mr. M. said, as the friendship of these Indians could not be bought, he thought it would be safer for the traders to go through their country by different routes, than to have but one, which would give the Indians the best opportunities for ambush, and committing depredation and murder. Mr. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, said that he was always happy to have his worthy friend from North Carolina, (Mr. MACON,) with him in any measure of legislation.He recollected that, during the session, his friend had supported him in a very important proposition, and he should not forget the delight which he experienced in having with him a member so distinguished for long services and integrity of principle. On this occasion, he had entertained some hopes that the gentleman from North Carolina would agree to appropriate $10,000, to find out the best and most direct trace for the enterprising citizen of the West to pursue his trade to Santa Fe, and the western parts of Mexico, when the West had never hesitated to vote for any measure which was necessary to protect the lives or property of our sea-faring citizens. Do you call for fortifications? We vote the money to make them. Do you want an increase of the Navy, to secure our commerce upon the high seas, and to secure our seaboard in case of war? We grant the sum necessary to accomplish the object. Do you want additional sloops of war, and additional means, to suppress piracy? We give the money, till the Executive government says enough." You have asked for $500,000 this year, to suppress piracy in the West Indies: we are ready to give it. We ask for $10,000, to facilitate our trade with Santa Fe, and to take measures to secure our enterprising citizens in their lives and their property while pursuing that lucrative and important trade. The pirates in the West Indian seas are stealing the property of our citizens, and murdering the officers and crews of your merchant vessels, without regard to age or sex; and annually, upon our interior and territorial frontier, our citizens are murdered by the natives of our forests. Every blast which crosses the great mountains of the Alleghany, brings the groans of the dying enterprising trader of the West, murdered by the Indian. Do not our citizens stand upon an equality, whether they be upon the high seas, or in the great American desert, extending to the Rocky Mountains? I feel the same indignation, whether I see the hands of the pirate, or the hands of the savage of the wilderness, imbrued in the blood of our fellow citizens. I feel the same indignation, whether that citizen be a hardy tar of the ocean, a citizen of the Rocky Mountains, or a resident of this metropolis. Another view is presented to my mind: we have many objects of national expenditure in the West, and it is the duty of Congress to make annual appropriations, out of the funds of the government in the West, towards those objects-additional military posts should be established-the Cumberland road should be extended to Missouri-a western armory should be erected, and a military armory should be established in some part of the Western states. I hope Congress will not forget the provision in the constitution, as to the regulations of commerce with foreign nations, among the several states, and with the Indian tribes. While we build our ships of war, erect fortifications, and appropriate millions for the security of commerce and defence of our maritime frontier, we ask the sum of $10,000 for a great and important object of internal trade, and the security of those concerned in it in the Western country. Can this appropriation be denied to us? I presume it cannot. We have done nothing more than our duty, in doing all we have done for foreign commerce, and for the security of our maritime frontier; nor can we refuse what is necessary for the commerce and security of the West. Mr. MACON replied, that the case of the light-house, in the West Indies, could hardly be called a precedent, that it was not done by authority of Congress. As to the expense of protecting commerce in the West India seas, from pirates, &c. Mr. M. said, it was as much for the be nefit of the people of the Western States, as of any other part of the Union, as the products of the West were necessarily transported through those waters, and the people who furnished the cargo, were as much interested in the safety of the commerce, as the owner of the vessel, &c. [JAN. 26, 1825. the United States were to adopt a route, and do their part without an understanding with the other government, the route might not be located to please the Mexican Government, and the money expended would be wasted. Why not retain the section that authorized the negotiation with the Mexican Government for every thing that was required? Mr. SMITH thought that the advantages of this commerce might be held out to the Mexican Government, and when they found that they could get their goods on more reasonable terms, they would be induced to join with the United States in making this road. He should vote for the bill, but from a different view of it from that taken by his friend from Kentucky, (Mr. JOHNSON.) Mr. S. thought that sufficient occasions for expending the public money always presented themselves, without seeking them; he repelled the assertion, that the inte rest of the Eastern States had always been preferred to that of the West-and asserted that the Eastern members voted for all the measures beneficial to the people of the West. He cited many great objects of expense: the Cumberland Road; the military works at Mackinaw, and on the Lakes, &c. to shew that the interests of the West were not neglected. He did not like the argument that went to prove that one part of the Union was hostile to the other. The only question with him was, whether commerce could be carried on there to advantage, and, as he was satisfied it could be, he should vote for the bill. Mr. KELLY, of Alabama, said, he trespassed with great reluctance on the attention of the Senate. The great object of the bill is to cherish and foster a commerce already in existence, between the American and Mexican republics. That commerce, to be mutually beneficial, must be regulated and protected, and placed upon a footing of safety and reciprocity by the respective governments. This commerce must be carried on by land, through several Indian tribes. To be safe, a road must be had, a right of way, or a trace, if you please, secured. To answer the object, this trace must pass the boundary of the United States, and extend for several hundred miles through the wilderness country, in the Mexican republic, to the settlements with whom the traffic must be carried on. Now, sir, to stop the "trace" Mr. BROWN was very glad to hear such sentiments at the boundary of the United States, would leave this fall from the honorable gentleman, and hoped that a reintervening Mexican wilderness to obstruct the propos-ciprocal good feeling would always exist. He thought ed intercourse. Why should this be left? I cannot there cuold be no objections to the bill, and approved agree, said Mr. K. with the gentleman from Maine, (Mr. the proposition to treat with the Mexican Government. HOLMES,) that we have done enough in going to our own He differed from his friend from North Carolina, (Mr. boundary, and that we may leave the balance to the MACON.) This was something more than Indian trade, Mexican government. It may be well to remember that and it did not at all follow that, because, in former times, the Mexican government is in the germ of its existence, large fortunes were made by the Indian trader, who had struggling with difficulties that we have long since sur- traces, that no road should be marked out now. mounted; and, without intending any disrespect to the Mr. LLOYD, of Massachusetts, had been very much population of Mexico, we may say, in the most friendly misunderstood if he had been supposed to make the momanner, that they are less intelligent in commercial mat- tion with feelings hostile to the bill-he was in favor of ters than we are; and, although, to us, the advantages it-the mere trifle of money proposed, was nothing-he of this commerce are clear and obvious, they may not was opposed to the principle of laying out money in the be so to them; and, however reasonable the calculation territories of a foreign power. If it were for the mutual may be that they will meet us at the boundary line, and advantage of both parties, the Mexican Government mark the trace through their own territory, I cannot would of course be as ready as we were; but, if it were help feeling some doubt, myself, that they may fail to do not, then they would not suffer us to enjoy it. As to so as promptly as the commerce in question requires it the expenditures made for the protection of commerce should be done. It occurs to me, then, as the most ra- on the ocean, Mr. L. said it was for the benefit of all-it tional mode of legislating on this subject, to approach was not a local interest. The only way that the revenue the Mexican government in a language best of all calcu- was procured, was by commerce, and it was the duty of lated to obtain promptly the object in view. It may be the government to afford it every protection in its pow. true, as stated by the gentleman from North Carolina, er. He should be pleased to see the road opened; it (Mr. MACON,) that, in days of yore, many persons made would pass through a most fertile country, and opened a fortunes by traffic with the neighboring Indians, when communication between, as the gentleman expressed it, they had to trudge along "a trace;" and, although this two of the most splendid republics in the universe. be true, as a fact, I am still willing to travel on a road, Would not the Mexican Government, having a populawhen I can find one; and this, it seems to me, may be tion of seven millions of souls, and gold and silver mines done by the men of the present day, without incurring at command, furnish $3000 for her share? Yes, if the the charge of irreverence to their ancestors. And, al-project pleased them, they could give five hundred though this traffic may have been thus profitable, without the aid of government, I am confident it would have been on a better footing if it had been under the protection of the government. I have no idea that Indian depredation is to cease on the establishment of this trace, but I believe that less blood will be shed, and less property plundered, under proposed regulations by the government, than it can be if left to unaided individual enterprise. Mr. TALBOT thought, that, if the section were struck out, the effect of the bill would be destroyed. He argued to shew that it would be far better, before commencing the road, to enter into negotiation, and arrange every thing with the Mexican government; because, if times as much; and, if they did not like it, that was another consideration. If the gentleman would alter the phraseology of the bill as Mr. L. had suggested, he would vote for it. Mr. BENTON was well aware of the weight of the objection urged by the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, and he was satisfied also that the gentleman was not influenced by pecuniary motives. It was naturally a question of policy, and a subject to which his attention had been previously turned by the precedent he had yesterday cited in justification of the section proposed to be struck out. Although this proposition went by the name of a road, yet, Mr. B. said, it was not so in fact; all that was proposed to be done, was to cast up JAN. 26, 1825.] Internal Trade with Mexico.-Rules for Presidential Election. [S. & H. of R. mounds of earth and sand, and pyramids of stones, to mark out the way. Without a figure, they might be called light-houses; for they were, in point of fact, guides to the passenger. The present measure differed from the act of 1807, authorizing a road to be opened through Florida in two points: that road went through the settlements belonging to the King of Spain, and was a road, properly speaking; this was merely a track, and passed only through the unoccupied parts of the Mexican territory. It was argued that, if this trade were beneficial to the people of Mexico, they would meet us half way; but it was very easy to imagine a trade that was more beneficial to one party than another. We, said Mr. B. are the carriers, and it is we who have need of the road to travel upon; but it is idle to expect that these people will make roads; they are blinded by ignorance. As an instance, he mentioned that the Province of New Mexico has been established for more than 150 years. The commerce between Mexico and Santa Fe is carried on by means of mules; the journey there and back occupies five months; and, during the whole period mentioned, has passed but by one route; yet it is a fact, that, on this whole route, there is not such a thing as a bridge, except such as are composed of poles put side by side, such as only our dogs would cross, and such holes were suffered to exist in them, that our men, and even our dogs, would be in danger of breaking their legs. If, then, for so many years, they have not thought it worth while to make a better road for this valuable branch of commerce, how are we to expect them to cooperate here? We are not to expect any thing more from them than the privilege to mark out the way. The question was then taken on striking out the second section, and negatived-ages 15, noes 23; and the bill was ordered to a third reading, by the following vote : YEAS. Messrs. Barton, Benton, Bouligny, Brown, D'Wolf, Eaton, Edwards, Elliott, Holmes, of Miss. Jackson, Johnson, of Ken. Johnston, of Lou. Kelly, Knight, Lanman, Lloyd, of Mass. Lowrie, McIlvaine, McLean, Noble, Palmer, Parrott, Ruggles, Seymour, Smith, Talbot, Taylor, Thomas, Van Buren, Van Dyke.-30. NAYS.-Messrs. Branch, Chandler, Clayton, Cobb, Gaillard, Hayne, Holmes, of Maine, King, of Ala. King, of N. Y. Macon, Tazewell, Williams.-12. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-SAME DAY. The committee appointed "to prepare and report such That the following Rules be observed by the House in the choice of a President of the United States, whose term is to commence on the fourth day of March, 1825, if the choice shall constitutionally devolve upon the House: 1st. In the event of its appearing, on opening all the certificates and counting the votes given by the Electors of the several states for President, that no person has a majority of the votes of the whole number of Electors appointed, and the result shall have been declared, the same shall be entered on the Journals of this House. 2d. The roll of the House shall then be called, and, on its appearing that a member or members from twothirds of the states are present, the House shall immediately proceed, by ballot, to choose a President from the persons having the highest numbers, not exceeding three, on the list of those voted for as President; and in case neither of those persons shall receive the votes of a majority of all the states on the first ballot, the House shall continue to ballot for a President, without interruption by other business, until a President be chosen. 3d. The doors of the Hall shall be closed during the balloting, except against Members of the Senate, and the Officers of the House; and the Galleries shall be cleared on the request of the Delegation of any one state. 4th. From the commencement of the balloting until an election is made, no proposition to adjourn shall be received, unless on the motion of one state, seconded by another state; and the question shall be decided by states. The same rule shall be observed in regard to any motion to change the usual hour for the meeting of the House. 5th. In balloting, the following mode shall be observed, to wit: The Representatives of each state shall be arranged After the vote of each state is ascertained, duplicates When the votes of the states are thus all taken in, the One person from each state, represented in the balloting, shall be appointed by its Representatives to tell off said ballots, but in case the Representatives fail to appoint a teller, the Speaker shall appoint; That said tellers shall divide themselves into two sets, as nearly equal in number as can be, and one of the said sets of tellers shall proceed to count the votes in one of said boxes, and the other set the votes in the other; |