minion of the United States. These suggestions, Mr. | President, are the offspring of no unreasonable distrust of human virtue, much less of any want of respect for the truly revered and exalted characters of the Judges by whom that bench is filled, but from a consciousness of the infirmities of human nature, and a desire to guard, as far as human wisdom can, against their mischievous tendencies--suggestions, the wisdom of which will not be controverted until, indeed, we shall be convinced that angels, in the shape of men, have come down to judge for, as well as to rule over us. [Senate. against the operation of a by-law of the Corporation of this city, passed in pursuance of an act of Congress, and controlling in its operation the penal and municipal regulations of the state. That Virginia did feel some alarm at this apprehended violation of her rights as a sovereign and independent state, her rights, by wholesome regulations, to the internal police of her own state, on points entirely municipal; and that some of her most enlightened statesmen were alarmed at the attempt to arraign at the bar of the federal tribunals, as a party in the record, the state itself, which was made a party to But the sensibility of my honorable friend, to a sup the case, is evinced by the fact, that counsel of the first posed attack on the purity of this tribunal which none distinction, the most eminent in their public councils, has, or, I presume, will call in question, even by insinua- was deputed and appointed on the part of the commontion the most remote, was as uncalled for as unexpected, wealth, to maintain its sovereign rights believed to be as regards the quarter from whence this chivalric spirit infringed by this claim of jurisdiction on the part of the comes. For, among the states of this Union, which, from Supreme Court of the United States. That this jurisNew Hampshire, in the North, to Georgia, in the South, diction thus claimed by the Court of the Nation to deembracing Ohio and Kentuck, in the West, have, in cide on the sovereign rights of the states by appeal, or succession, felt the glow of indignant resentment at the writ of error, was maintained by this tribunal, must be real or fancied dangers to which they have been expos- in the recollection of all who are in the habit of attended, from the real or imagined infringement of their sove- ing to subjects of this nature. And that Virginia escapreign rights, from the claim or exercise of jurisdictioned from what she might possibly have supposed the morby this tribunal, Virginia surely has not been without tifying, if not degrading, consequences of a defeat in her private griefs. Nor has the jealous vigilance of that this struggle for the maintenance of her sovereign rights proud, high minded state, felt, or indicated, a disposi- is to be ascribed alone to the peculiar phraseology of the tion to acquiesce tamely, and without a struggle, in the act of Congress by which this power of creating lotteclaims of jurisdiction on the part of this Supreme Court ries is delegated to the corporation, not to any defect of of the Nation, touching, as she conceived, her rights power on the part of Congress, as the exclusive legisand prerogatives as one of the members of this Union lature over the ten miles square, so to have framed this of independent states. Nor has she been slow or feeble delegation of power, as to have arrested the power of in the measures she pursued, in vindication of her rights that commonwealth in the established enforcement of thus supposed to be endangered. Passing by her manly suitable regulations for the government of its own citiand spirited opposition to the sedition act, and the con- zens in relation to the internal police thereof. duct of the Federal Judges in enforcing its sanctions in But these occurrences, Mr. President, strongly calcuviolation of the constitution of the United States-lated as they are to arouse the feelings and excite the need I remind my honorable friend of the firm and de-apprehensions of the patriotic statesman, anxious for the cided stand taken by the Supreme Court of that patrio-perpetuation of our happy Union, like most other polititic state, a tribunal filled by men illustrious for their vir- cal occurrences, transient as a winter's storm, quicktuous and enlightened minds, to the jurisdiction claim-ly pass away and are forgotten: and those states, once ed and exercised by the Supreme Court of the United so agitated by the supposed danger of tyranny or usurStates, in the famous case of Fairfax and Hunter; a case pation, sink into profound repose. Thus Maryland, Kenin which, after solemn argument and mature deliberation, tucky, and Ohio, in their turns, have had to encounter the Supreme Court of that state, if I am not mistaken, the power and influence of that great engine of political not only decided against the power thus claimed and ex- power, the Bank of the United States; have been seercised by this tribunal of the nation, to take jurisdic-verally attacked, and, after a feeble and ineffectual tion by writ of error, of cases of private right which had been finally decided by that Court as the tribunal of the last resort within the state; but resting on the sovereign power of the state, refused peremptorily to obey the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States. A refusal which, but for the mild and conciliatory course adopted by this latter tribunal, of directing the execution of their mandate by their own inmediate officer, might have brought at once the authorities of the State and Federal Government into a state of fearful and alarming conflict; at the possible consequences of which I trust, however, Mr. President, that, in'these remarks, every real patriot must shudder. Nor was this the only briefly touching on the apprehended tendency of some occasion in which this high minded and patriotic state, recent decisions of this tribunal. for which, as well as its has evinced alarm at the accroachment of this tribunal, as several members, I entertain none but the most respectful she deemed them, on her power and jurisdiction as an sentiments, it will not be understood that I mean by insiindependent state. A case, much more recent than that nuation to cast the slightest shade of imputation on the just alluded to, and of familiar recollection to us all-the purity of intention or the correctness of judgment with case of Cohens against the Commonwealth of Virginia, which justice is impartially dispensed from this exalted in which a jurisdiction was again claimed and exercised bench. All I mean to contend for, is, and it is certainly under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, by open to candid and fair remark, that, from the nature and the Supreme Court of the United States, to arrest the organization of this tribunal, deriving all its powers, hoSupreme Tribunal, or Court of Law of that state, having nors, and emoluments from the government of the nation, jurisdiction in the case, in the regular enforcement, in to which all its responsibilities alone are due; that such is the usual form, by information, of one of her penal laws the present imperfect state of human nature, unless attri a law prohibiting the vending of tickets in any lotteries butes more than human be ascribed to the members of but those established by the authority of the state. The whom it is composed, that there is some cause to apenforcement of the wholesome sanctions of this law was prehend an unconscious bias; a bias the more to be apdeemed important, not only in the protection of the mo-prehended, because it may be an inmate of the more rals and preservation of the interests of her citizens, but virtuous mind. And, that it is therefore the duty of eve struggle, have been successively vanquished in the contest; have contended without aid or co-operation from their sister states, who, aloof from the contest, have seemed indifferent to their fate. Nor have the generous sympathies of their brethren been sufficiently enlisted to elicit even a salutary jealousy of the ultimate consequen ces to be feared from a succession of such attacks and triumphant victories over the several states on the part of the General Government and the institutions to which it has given birth. Sen. & H. of R.] On the Judiciary-Public Lands in Ohio. ry patriotic and enlightened legislator, to correct the tendencies to such dangerous bias, by any means which legislation is competent to effect; I have therefore endeavored, I trust not in vain, to argue, that it is by the discharge of the duties of Circuit Judges within the several states according to the present wise organization of the Courts of the United States, and the associations which the discharge of those duties produce, that a competent knowledge of the constitutions, laws, and customs, and all the variety of their modifications, can be best acquired by the members of the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States, and those feelings of equal regard and veneration for the sovereign rights of the individual states be imbibed and cherished, which alone afford a fair promise of the correct discharge of the important duties of impartial umpires between the governments of the states and that of the nation, so imperatively demanded by the theory of our complicated forms of government, and on which the happiness and prosperity of our common country and the perpetuation of its free institutions so essentially depend. The present system of organization of the Courts of the United States, founded in much wisdom, framed by many of the sages to whom we are indebted for the great charter of our liberties, sanctioned by a happy experience of thirty-five years; adapted to the administration of justice by the same impartial means; and well adapted to the number and extent of the states which at that time composed our Union; the benefits of which, by a simple extension of the system, and application of its principles to the nine western states, which have swelled the number and added to the wealth, power, and resources of the Union, is all we ask, is all the bill on your table contemplates, and is that to which no ho norable member of this body has denied our unquestioned right. On what ground, then, I ask, is it now to be withheld? The demand is not now for the first time urged on the councils of the nation. For several successive sessions it has been solicited, urged, and pressed for; but as yet in vain. On the part of the opposers of this bill, what is urged in opposition? Why time, time for deliberation! We, the friends of the measure, are preparing some thing new of vast importance. What we ask, seems to be perfectly fair and reasonable. This procrastination, Mr. President, from the last to the present session, from the commencement of the present to almost the point of its termination, is that of which the friends of this measure have a right to complain. The advocates of the measure seek for the establishment of no new principle; no new modification of those which are old and well established. A simple extension of the principle of the Federal Courts, to meet the increased numbers of our states and population. It is what imperious justice gives us a right to ask; what the councils of the nation cannot in justice hesitate to grant. Hope, already long deferred sickens at the apprehensions of further delay in the execution of this necessary work; and the people of the West, already deeply injured by the long delays which have already intervened, cannot much longer fold their arms in silent acquiescence at the injustice of such repeated and unjustified delays. Let me bring home the force of these remarks, to the bosoms of honorable Senators, representing here the ancient states, which, from the origin of your system have been in the constant and full possession of it benefits, to say, what would be their emotions, if it were proposed that Virginia, for example, should no longer have a member of the bench of the Supreme Tribunal to preside in the Circuit Courts, but should be content with her District Judge. Yet, would such deprivation be no more unjust than the denial of the same advantage to each of the new states which nave been admitted into the Union since this system was adopted and received its present form. [FEB. 16, 1825. Upon this hasty and desultory sketch of the views on which this bill is advocated by its friends, I will, with the utmost cheerfulness, submit it to its fate, only deprecating, as I do most fervently, any attempt on the part of its opposers, by farther unnecessary delays at this advanced stage of the session, to defer its passage without a direct decision on its merits-of the correctness and justice of which I have nothing to apprehend. Mr. FINDLAY, of Pa. made a few remarks expressive of the doubt he still felt on the subject, notwith standing all that had been said; and concluded by moving an adjournment. The Senate adjourned. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-SAME DAY. The House procceded to the unfinished business of yesterday. The resolution of the Committee on Military Affairs, rejecting those claims, was concurred in by the House. [This question was, in effect, decided yesterday, when the House refused to recommit the report.] MASSACHUSETTS MILITIA CLAIMS. Mr. HAMILTON moved that the House take up the bill providing for the Massachusetts Militia Claims, and, with a view to ascertain whether it was the determination of the House to act on that subject at the present session at all, he demanded the yeas and nays on his motion. The House refused to order the yeas and nays and the motion was negatived. On motion of Mr. VANCE, of Ohio, the House then went into committee of the whole, Mr. SAUNDERS in the chair, on the bill to provide for the relinquishment of certain claims for land sold, by the United States, in the state of Ohio. Mr. RANKIN (Chairman of the Committee on the Public Lands,) explained the circumstances of the case on which the bill is founded. In 1784, Virginia ceded to the United States the Northwestern territory, out of which the states of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, have since been formed. Previous to this cession, Virginia had promised to her continental soldiery a certain rate of land as bounty. In order to fulfil their promise, that state set apart a certain tract of land in Kentucky, and in the act of cession above refer red to, it was made a condition that, if this tract in Kentucky proved insufficient to satisfy all the bounty warrants issued by Virginia, Congress should set apart another tract north of the Ohio, and between the Scioto and Miami rivers, (in what is now the state of Ohio.) Soon after the cession, about the year 1788, many unauthorized locations were made between those rivers, before the tract was set apart by Congress. These lo cations, Congress declared to be invalid. In 1790, Congress having evidence on the part of Virginia, that the tract in Kentucky was insufficient, set apart this tract between the Miami and the Scioto, according to the stipulation in the act of cession. No difficulty occurred in fixing its boundaries on three of the sides, because these consisted of the rivers Ohio, Scioto, and Miami; but some difficulty did occur in fixing the remaining boundary line from the source of the Scioto, to the source of the Miami, both which points then lay in the Indian country. In 1804, Mr. Ludlow, the United States' surveyor for that district, ran what he supposed to be the true line. All the lands East of this were subject to the Virginia warrants. All the lands West of it were held to belong to the United States, and were sold accordingly; but the accuracy of this line being disputed, commissioners were appointed on the part of Virginia and the United States, by whose direction a second line was run by another surveyor, called Roberts, which started from the same point, viz: the source of the Scioto, but ran towards a different point, now found to be the true source of the Miami. Thus there occurred a gore between Ludlow's line and Robert's line. Upon a suit to try the question, the District Court of the United States decided, that the land in this gore was subject to the Virginia warrants-but the land had already been sold by the United States to actual settlers. To those persons now deprived of their settlements, compensation was to be made, and the Committee on the Public Lands bad come to the conclusion, that the rate of this compensation ought to be regulated by the valuation of these lands, made in obedience to an act of Congress, at the last session. The gore contained 14,000 acres, and the valuation of the land, exclusive of improvements, amounts to $60,000. The present bill provides that this sum should be put into the hands of the President of the United States, for the purpose of quieting all location claims prior to the year 1812. The bill was then reported without amendment, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading to-morrow. The House then went into committee of the whole, Mr. CONDICT in the chair, on the Senate's amendments to the General and Naval Appropriation bills. The first amendment, which proposes to strike out a compensation made to Mr. T. H. Gilliss, for extra servi ces performed during the illness of the late Fourth Auditor, gave rise to a desultory debate. Mr. M'I.ANE moved that the House disagree to the amendment of the Senate. He advocated the justice of making this allowance to Mr. Gilliss, who had perform ed this service over and above his own duty as Chief Clerk. The extra service, (which often kept him in the office till two o'clock in the morning,) ought, in justice, to receive an extra compensation. Mr. COCKE, Mr. WHIPPLE, and Mr. FLOYD, successively advocated the amendment of the Senate, and opposed the appropriation. First, on the ground that, when the United States employed a clerk, at a given salary, they engaged with him for his whole time, if their service required it. Secondly, that the salary of the officer who was sick, was paid to him in full, although he was personally unable to render any service for the same; and, if a substitute was employed, it must be at his expense. Thirdly, that this was setting a novel precedent, and introducing a new and dangerous principle into the practice of the Government. Fourthly, that these duties, during a greater part of the time, had been performed, not by the Chief Clerk in the Fourth Auditor's Office, (Mr. Gilliss,) but by the Second Auditor, (Mr. Lee.) The question being taken, the House concurred in the amendment of the Senate, and struck out the appropriation. The next amendment of the Senate proposed to strike out the appropriation of $1,700 for two additional clerks in the office of the Surveyor of the United States for the district South of Ten nessee. The amendment was advocated by Messrs. COCKE and M'COY, on the ground that the House had not suf ficient proof that these clerks were needed-they had not been asked by other surveyors, &c.; and opposed by Messrs. OWEN, of Alabama, and GURLEY, of Louisiana, who stated the circumstances of the case, explained the necessity of these clerks, as arising from a resurvey of all those sections of the public lands through which large rivers ran. In the sales hitherto made of such sections, the space occupied by the river had been deducted only by estitimate-in consequence of which, purchasers sometimes got more, and sometimes less, than they paid for. The records, also, in this office, were in arrears for fourteen | years back. On the question of concurrence with the Senate in striking out this appropriation, the Ayes were 63, the Noes 78. So the amendment of the Senate was disagreed to. [H. of R. & Sen. The next amendment, which proposes to insert $14,000 for furniture for the President's House, was adopted, ayes 80. The amendment which proposes to strike out the appropriation of 12,000 dollars for the pay of six commissioners to settle the title to lands in Florida, was disagreed to. [Mr. CALL, (Delegate from Florida,) stated the circumstances of the case, and strongly represented the injury which would result from interrupting the operations of the two Boards of Commissioners, now in session in East and West Florida.] So the appropriation was retained. The last amendment which appropriates $5,000 for graduating and improving the grounds round the Presi dent's House, was agreed to, ayes 70, noes 65. IN SENATE-MONDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1825. The Senate resumed, as in committee of the whole, the bill to amend the judicial system of the United States, and to authorize the creation of three additional Circuit Courts: Mr. TAZEWELL'S motion to exclude the additional circuit judges from being judges of the Supreme Court, still pending. Mr. TAZEWELL submitted one or two additional reasons which weighed with him in offering his amend ment; and Mr. BARTON, of Missouri, briefly stated his reasons for opposing the amendment; and also why he disapproved of the bill as it stood. Mr. MILLS, being convinced that the remaining time of the session did not permit this subject to be matured in the Senate, moved that the bill be recommitted, in or der that the Judiciary Committee might consider the various plans proposed, and report some one likely to unite a majority of the Senate in its favor. The expediency of recommitment was briefly debated by Messrs. MILLS, HOLMES, of Me. TALBOT, EATON, and JOHNSON, of Ken.; when Mr. EATON moved to connect with the motion for recommitment, instructions to the committee to report a bill with the following provisions : "The United States shall be divided into the following circuits : The states of Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, shall form the first division, to which two additional associate justices shall be appointed; "The states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland, shall constitute the second division, to which one additional associate justice shall be appointed; "The states of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, shall form the third division; and "The states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Mis. souri, shall constitute the fourth division, to which four additional associate justices shall be appointed. "That the justices of each circuit shall, according to their own arrangement, hold the circuit courts of the respective states within the several circuits, at such time and place as may, from time to time, be prescribed, and shall, on or before the first Monday of December in each and every year, appoint one of their number to proceed to Washington, to hold the session of the Supreme Court, which said justices, so appointed, together with the chief justice, shall hold the Supreme Court at Washington City: Provided, that this provision shall not take effect during the continuance in office of the present associate justices; and provided, also, that once in years, if any question shall be pending in the Supreme Court, as to the constitutionality of the act of any state, or in which may be involved the right of any state, the President of the United States, on information of said Senate.] On the Judiciary. fact from the chief justice, shall, by his proclamation, order and direct the whole number of associate justices to attend at the next term of the Supreme Court, to hear and decide said question; and which shall be placed on the docket first in order for consideration." Mr. RUGGLES stated his objections to the proposition of Mr. EATON, and also to the discrimination proposed by the amendment of Mr. TAZEWELL, which he deemed highly unjust and injurious to the Western states, and one which ought not to be attempted. Mr. R. also urged the necessity of providing a remedy, without delay, for the inconvenience experienced in that large portion of the Union, by the defect of the judicial system; and hoped the question would be met fairly, and not embarrassed by endless propositions for modification or recommitment. Mr. HOLMES, of Maine, made some remarks to shew the impracticable nature of the scheme proposed by Mr. EATON. Mr. KING, of N. Y. considering that it became more and more apparent that the subject could not be effectually acted on at the present session, moved that the bill and amendments be indefinitely postponed. The motion was decided in the negative by Yeas and Nays, as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Barbour, Barton, Branch, Clayton, Cobb, D'Wolf, Edwards, Elliott, Findlay, Hayne, King, of N. Y. Lanman, Mcllvaine, Macon, Mills, Taylor, Tazewell, Van Buren, Van Dyke-19. NAYS.-Messrs. Bell, Benton, Bouligny, Brown, Chandler, Dickerson, Eaton, Gaillard, Holmes, of Me. Holmes, of Miss. Jackson, Johnson, of Ken. Johnston, of Lou. Kelly, King, of Alab. Knight, Lloyd, of Mass. Mc Lean, Noble, Palmer, Parrott. Ruggles, Seymour, Smith, Talbot, Thomas, Williams-27. Mr. EATON then, at the suggestion of several members, withdrew his amendment, with the intention of of fering it hereafter, if the question on the recommitment prevailed. The question was then put on the recommitment, and negatived by the following vote : YEAS.-Messrs. Barbour, Barton, Benton, Bouligny, Branch, Clayton, Cobb, D'Wolf, Edwards, Elliott, Find lay, Hayne, King, of N. Y. Knight, McIlvaine, Mills, Taylor, Tazewell, Van Buren, Van Dyke, Williams--21. NAYS.-Messrs. Bell, Brown, Chandler, Dickerson, Eaton, Gaillard, Holmes, of Me. Holmes, of Miss. Jack. son, Johnson, of Ken. Johnston, of Louis. Kelly, King, of Alab. Lanman, Lloyd, of Mass. McLean, Macon, Noble, Palmer, Parrott, Ruggles, Seymour, Smith, Talbot, Thomas-25. The question was then taken, without further debate, on Mr. TAZEWELL'S motion so to amend the bill that the additional circuit judges shall not be justices of the Supreme Court, and was decided in the negative by the following vote: YEAS.-Messrs. Branch, Clayton, Cobb, D'Wolf, Elliott, Tazewell-6. NAYS.-Messrs. Barbour, Barton, Bell, Benton, Bouligny, Brown, Chandler, Dickerson, Eaton, Edwards, Findlay, Gaillard, Hayne, Holmes, of Maine, Holmes of Miss. Jackson, Johnson, of Ken, Johnston, of Louisiana, Kelly, King, of Alab. King, of New York, Knight, Lanman, Lloyd, of Mass. M'Ilvaine, M'Lean, Macon, Mills, Noble, Palmer, Parrott, Ruggles, Seymour, Smith, Talbot, Taylor, Thomas, Van Buren, Van Dyke, Williams-40. Mr. VAN BUREN thought it apparent, from the votes of to-day, that the Senate was not only determined on acting on this subject, but was decidedly in favor of the principle contained in the bill: that is, the appointment of additional circuit judges, who should be also Judges of the Supreme Court. For himself, he preferred the plan that had been offered by Mr. BARBOUR; the separa tion of the Supreme Court from circuit duties; but, as | [FEB. 17, 1825. the Senate favored the plan proposed by the bill, he rose to move a single amendment, which was to reduce the additional number of Circuit Judges to be provided for by the bill to two, so that there should be (with the present one in the Western states,) three Circuit Judges in that section of the Union. This motion was supported by Mr. VAN BUREN and was opposed by Messrs. TALBOT and HOLMES, of Maine; when The question was taken on the amendment, by yeas and nays, and decided in the affirmative, as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Barbour, Barton, Bell, Branch Chandler, Clayton, Cobb, D'Wolf, Eaton, Edwards, Elliott, Findlay, Hayne, King, of Alab. King, of New York, Knight, Lanman, Lloyd, of Mass. M'Ilvaine, Macon, Mills, Parrott, Seymour, Smith, Taylor, Tazewell, Van Buren, and Van Dyke-28. NAYS.-Messrs. Benton, Bouligny, Brown, Dickerson, Gaillard, Holmes, of Maine, Holmes, of Mississippi, Jackson, Johnson, of Kentucky, Johnston, of Louisiana, Kelly, M'Lean, Noble, Ruggles, Talbot, Thomas, and Williams-17. The bill was then recommitted to the Judiciary Committee, (for the arrangement of the circuits, &c.) The Senate took up their amendments to the appropriation bills, which had been disagreed to by the other House, and receded from each of them, except that which strikes out the appropriation of 12,000 dollars for the compensation of the Florida Land Commissioners. On the question of receding from their disagreement to this appropriation, a debate of considerable length ensued. It was urged against the appropriation, that the commission had expired by its limitation; and that, if its continuance was necessary, it ought to be renewed by law, and not continued by an appropriation. That it was in principle wrong to appropriate money for objects not previously authorized by law, &c. On the other hand, it was urged, that the commissioners had not completed their duties; that it was all important to the people of Florida that their land titles should be examined and adjusted; that great evils would arise from leaving the business unfinished, &c. &c. The question being then taken on receding from the amendment, it was negatived by a vote of 22 to 11; and the Senate insisted on striking out the appropriation. The President communicated to the Senate the following letter from the Secretary of the Treasury : TREASURY DEpartment, 16th February, 1825. SIR: In conformity with the provisions of the act of the 10th February, 1820, entitled "An act to provide for obtaining accurate statements of the Foreign Commerce of the United States," I have the honor to transmit, herewith, the following statements of the Commerce and Navigation of the United States dur ing the year ending on the 30th day of September, 1834, viz: 1st. A. A general statement of the quantity and value of merchandise imported into the United States from the 1st October, 1823, to the 30th June, 1824. 1st. B. Do. do. from 1st July, to 30th Sept. 1824. 2d. A summary statement of the same. 3d. A general statement of the quantity and value of Domestic Articles exported. 4th. A general statement of the quantity and value of Foreign Articles exported. 5th and 6th. Summary statements of the value of Domestic and Foreign Articles-exported. 7th. A general statement of the amount of American and Foreign Tonnage employed in the Foreign Trade of the United States. 8th. A general statistical view of the Commerce and Navigation of the United States. FEB. 17, 1825.] Deposites in Public Stores-Illinois Canal. 9th. A statement of the Commerce and Navigation of each State and Territory. From these statements, it appears that the imports during the year ending on the 30th September, 1824, have amounted to $80,549,007, of which amount $75,265,054 were imported in American vessels, and $5,283,953 in foreign vessels; that the exports have, during the same period, amounted to $75,986,657, of which, $50,649,500 were domestic, and $25,337,157 were foreign articles; that, of the domestic articles, $43,444,619 were exported in American vessels, and $7,204,881 in foreign vessels; and of the foreign articles, $23,967,087 were exported in American vessels, and $1,370,070 in foreign vessels; that 850,033 tons of American shipping entered, and 919,278 cleared from the ports of the United States; and that 102,367 tons of foreign shipping entered, and 102,552 cleared from the ports of the United States during the same period. I have the honor to be, sir, with great respect, your obedient servant, WM. H. CRAWFORD. Hon. President of the Senate pro tem. On motion of Mr. LLOYD, of Mass. it was ordered, that 1000 copies thereof, with the documents accompanying it, be printed for the use of the Senate. After some other business, The Senate adjourned. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-SAME DAY. DEPOSITES IN PUBLIC STORES. Mr. M'KIM renewed a motion he made yesterday to take up the bill to extend the right of deposite in public or other stores, on certain conditions, and with certain privileges to other goods, besides wines, teas, and distilled spirits. The House accordingly went into committee of the whole on that bill, Mr. FOOT, of Connecticut, in the chair; it was read by sections. Mr. M'KIM briefly explained the object of the bill, which is to introduce the policy lately adopted by European powers in respect to depots for goods, (in order to save to the merchant the 2 per cent. now reserved on drawbacks.) The blank for the time in which the bill is to commence its effect was filled with the first day of July next The blank directing the sum to be retained out of the duties, was filled with one half of one per cent. The blank for the duration of the act was filled with three years. The bill was then reported as amended. Mr. CAMBRELENG professed himself decidedly friendly to the bill; but, from the conversation of gentlemen near him, he feared that the House were not prepared to act finally upon so important a measure. It certainly would be very useful to the commerce of the country, and he should very much regret to see it rejected from a misapprehension of its advantages. In order not to press the measure at so late a period of the session, and with a view to secure its adoption after it may have been more deliberately considered by the House, he would move to lay it upon the table. Mr. M'KIM having expressed much surprise at the opposition of the gentleman from New York Mr. CAMBRELENG explained. He hoped the gentleman from Maryland would not understand him as in any manner hostile to the measure proposed-his chief and only object was to ensure its success. He had made the motion at the suggestion of gentlemen near him, who, although not unfriendly, were not yet prepared to act upon a measure so important. The bill proposed to introduce the system of deposite practised in England, where it had been found useful, and where there were | Government warehouses; here, we were not so well [H. of R. prepared for the system. He had no doubt the House would adopt the measure, whenever they should have full time to deliberate upon it, and to understand it. He thought there were at this moment measures more interesting to the commercial interest, which ought now to command the attention of Congress. He referred to the piracy bill, &c. If, however, the House were prepared to pass the bill, after the slight consideration given it, he should be gratified. Mr. MALLARY advocated the passage of the bill to a third reading. Mr. RANKIN suggested some danger of storing the goods in private warehouses, of which the owner of the goods possessed the key. Mr. M'KIM explained. There were two locks; the key of one of which was held by the collector, the other by the proprietor. No need at present existed for very extensive warehouses. Mr. OWEN opposed any delay in passing the bill to a third reading. If objections existed, they could be urged afterwards, on the question of its final passage. Mr. WOOD apprehended danger of fraud, and objected to any extension of credit on duties. Mr. M'KIM replied-stated the guards of the bill, and denied that it granted the least extension of credit. The whole effect of the bill would be, to give twelve months longer for re-exportation, with benefit of drawback, and save to the merchant two per cent. of the duties paid on goods to be re-exported. Mr. CAMBRELENG was pleased to find that the sentiment of gentlemen near him did not appear to accord with the sentiment of the House--and presuming from what had been said, that gentlemen were prepared, without further deliberation, to act upon the bill-he withdrew his motion to lay it upon the table, and then moved that it be engrossed, and read a third time on Monday next. The bill was ordered, accordingly, to be engrossed and read a third time. ILLINOIS CANAL. Mr. COOK moved to take up the bill granting a certain quantity of land to the state of Illinois for the purpose of aiding in opening a canal to connect the waters of the river Illinois with those of Lake Michigan. The motion was carried-ayes 65, noes 63. The House accordingly went into committee of the whole, Mr. CONDICT in the chair, on that bill; Which was amended by the insertion, at the end of the third section, of a proviso, that no titles to the lands granted should be valid against the United States until the canal should have been completed. A fourth section was added, which applies the residue of the proceeds of these lands, after the whole expense of the canal should have been defrayed, to the promotion of learning within the state of Illinois. The same committee of the whole then, on motion of Mr. CALL, (the delegate from Florida) took up the bill granting certain lots of land to the corporations of St. Augustine and Pensacola. Mr. CALL having explained, at considerable length, the circumstances of the case to which this bill was intended to apply, and having defended the expediency of the bill on various grounds Mr. RANKIN, (Chairman of the Land Committee,) stated, very fully, his objections to the object and principle of the bill. Mr. M'COY inquired whether there were not private claims to the lots proposed by the bill to be granted. Mr. CALL explained. Mr. SHARPE inquired as to the value of the lots. Mr. CALL replied to this inquiry, and referred to Mr. SCOTT, of Missouri, for what had been done in that state. Mr. SCOTT made a brief statement in reply. |