Mr. CASS. I have been requested to present the credentials of CHARLES SUMNER, a Senator elect from the State of Massachusetts. The credentials were read. The Hon. Hamilton Fish, Benjamin F. Wade, Charles T. James, Henry S. Geyer, and Charles Sumner, then proceeded to the President's seat, and the usual oath was administered to them. CONTESTED SEAT OF SENATOR FROM FLORIDA. Mr. MORTON. Mr. President: I beg leave to present to the Senate the certificate of the Governor of the State of Florida, certifying the election of the Hon. STEPHEN R. MALLORY to the Senate of the United States for the term of six years, commencing on the 4th of March last. I beg leave, also, to present to the Senate a copy of the journal of the House of Representatives of the State of Florida, showing the proceedings of the joint meeting of the two Houses of the Legislature on the occasion of the election of a Senator for the term mentioned, and which is claimed by the Hon. DAVID L. YULEE, as evidence that he was elected as the Senator of the State of Florida for the term commencing on the 4th of March last. The proceedings are certified by the Secretary of State of Florida. I have considered it my especial duty to present to the Senate the claims of each of the gentlemen to the seat in this body of a Senator from Florida, for such action as the Senate may think proper, without indicating on my part what that action should be, but simply ask that the papers may be read. The credentials signed by the Governor of Florida, and the proceedings of the Legislature in the election of a Senator, extracted from its journals, certified by the Secretary of State, were also read. The PRESIDENT. The Chair is under the impression, that inasmuch as it is apparent that there is a contest for the seat of Senator from Florida, it is not his province to decide who is entitled to it. Under ordinary circumstances, he would ask the gentleman whose credentials are presented to come forward and take the oath; but heretofore some cases have arisen-there was one of great importance in the case of a Senator from Rhode Island-in which it was left to the Senate to decide whether the individual having the certificate should be qualified and the contest afterwards go on. It is, therefore, in the opinion of the Chair, a proper subject for the Senate to decide, as to whether they will admit either gentleman previous to an investigation by a committee, or exclude both until after an investigation. The Chair expresses no opinion on the subject, although, as a member of the Senate, he once gave an opinion in the course of the Rhode Island case. Another case, although it was not precisely like this, is that of Mr. Lanman of Connecticut, who was not permitted to take his seat because the Governor of Connecticut appointed him when he had no right to appoint, the Legislature having been in session after the vacancy and before the appointment. The cases are not similar. move at once that the oath of office be administered to Mr. Mallory. Mr. FOOTE, of Mississippi: I hope that, under the circumstances, the honorable Senator from Indiana [Mr. BRIGHT] will not press his motion. I understand that a very recent precedent has been supplied by this body in support of the views just announced by the honorable Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. CLAY.] I certainly should have made the motion suggested by him, but that I waited, I thought with due deference, for some older member of the Senate to make some motion. It seems to me that my friend from Indiana will not hesitate, after this explanation, to withdrw his motion, that the other motion may take its place. I think the Senator whose credentials have been presented, should be permitted to take his seat until some contest arises which may oust him therefrom. Mr. BERRIEN. Mr. President, the public papers have advised us of the existence of this controversy, and I presume it has engaged the attention and occupied the reflection of the members of the Senate. In my view of the subject, it is a case altogether without precedent. I think neither of the cases which have been mentioned afford a precedent which can properly guide and direct us on this occasion. In the case of Mr. Lanman, there was no party contesting; but upon the face of the case there was a manifest assumption of authority not conferred by the Constitution upon the Executive of a State. The Senate, therefore, of itself, took that subject into consideration, and decided that Mr. Lanman was not entitled to a seat. That case, I apprehend, was entirely different from the present. A word now as to the Rhode Island case-the case of Robbins and Potter. The credentials of Mr. Robbins, holding a certificate from the Governor of the State, had been presented at a session anterior to that at which he proposed to take his seat. When the time for the meeting of Congress arrived, Mr. Potter came, presenting a similar certificate of his subsequent election by the Legislature, founded upon the assumption, by this second Legislature, of the invalidity of the act of the first. It was in that state of facts that the question was presented to the Senate. Relying upon the fact that Mr. Robbins's credentials had been received and read in the Senate and placed upon their files, and upon the consideration that after the 4th of March subsequent to such reception of the credentials, Mr. Robbins, holding this prima facie evidence of his election, would have been entitled to his seat, the Senate determined that he should be permitted to take the oath as a member of the Senate, and the subject was then referred to a committee to ascertain the validity of the claims of the respective parties. But here, sir, is a case in which two parties present themselves, claiming a seat in the Senate of the United States. The question of the right of either of these gentlemen to that seat is a question, the obligation to decide which is imposed by the Constitution upon us. It is impossible to transfer this authority to any other functionary. The Governor of the State of Florida has granted a certificate in the form of a comThe Chair trusts that the Senate will take some mission, testifying to the election of one of these action in the matter, in order that the question individuals. The proceedings of the Legislature may be decided, so that he may ascertain whether upon which that certificate of the Governor is it is his duty to administer the oath to the gentle-founded, and coincidence with which is absolutely man who received the certificate or not. Mr. BRIGHT. In order to reach the facts in this case in as condensed a form as possible, I move that the credentials of the Senator elect, together with the extract from the journals of the Florida Legislature, be referred to a select com mittee of five. Mr. CLAY. Mr. President, for one, I cannot vote for that motion. I think the case is perfectly clear, according to the usage existing in every deliberative body of which I have any knowledge. Mr. Mallory comes here with a credential in due form, affording prima facie evidence of his right to the seat which he claims. There is presented at the same time, and I must say informally, in my judgment, proceedings behind the credentials which took place in the legislative body. I say they are informally presented, because it appears to me that they could only be legitimately offered at the time when the gentleman contesting the seat of Mr. Mallory should choose to present a petition claiming that seat. Under these circumstances, but for the motion already made, I should indispensable to give to that certificate any validity whatever, are before us. Without doubt it is the usage of the Senate to allow to the certificate of the Governor this prima facie effect. But what is prima facie evidence? Of what validity is prima facie evidence in the face of evidence which is plenary? I beg not to be understood as expressing any opinion upon the effect of the facts which are disclosed in those proceedings. I am answering the suggestion, that the certificate of the Governor is prima facie evidence which imposes upon the Senate the obligation to admit the person in whose favor the certificate has been granted, to a seat. I say this has been the usage uniformly where an individual presents the certificate of the Governor of a State, and no party appears to contest his claim; it is received as prima facie evidence, and the prima facie evidence becomes absolute in the absence of any contradictory evidence. Here, however, you have the evidence upon which the certificate was founded, and you have here another individual claiming that upon that plenary evidence which he submits he is the Senator elect from Florida. Can you recede from your obligations under the Constitution to decide between these conflicting claims? Can you transfer to the Governor of the State of Florida the right, and throw upon him the responsibility of deciding facts which are before you, and which the Constitution makes it your duty to decide? Prima facie evidence may be allowed, in its effect, to become conclusive in the absence of plenary evidence; but here is that plenary evidence, here are those facts authenticated before you, upon which the contestant claims his seat in this body, and upon which he denies the validity of the certificate by the Governor. Then it is no longer to be considered as prima facie evidence which entitles the party holding it to anything resulting from its force and effect, till it is compared with the plenary evidence, and you have decided upon that. At the first election which took place, there appears to have been cast twenty-nine votes for one gentlemen and twenty-nine blanks. The question which that record presents is, whether these blanks are voteswhether the party receiving these twenty-nine votes was the sole nominee on that occasion. Mr. FOOTE, of Mississippi. I rise to a point of order. With great respect and kindness for the honorable gentleman, it does seem to me that he is discussing the merits of the case, whereas the question at present is, I believe, only upon what has been the usage of the Senate in such cases. I make this suggestion with great deference; but the remarks of the honorable Senator from Georgia may give rise to controversy. The PRESIDENT. The question before the Senate is on referring to a select committee of five. Mr. BERRIEN. Unquestionably; and that is met by the suggestion that the prima facie evidence afforded by the certificate ought to control the action of the Senate so far as to entitle one of these gentlemen to be sworn in. I am endeavoring to show my own view of the propriety of that suggestion-my own view of the proposition that this is to be considered prima facie evidence leading to such a result under the existing circumstances of the case-and I submit to you, sir, that I am perfectly in order, and arguing the question with the same strictness with which I should be required to discuss it before a judicial tribunal. Mr. FOOTE, of Mississippi. I will withdraw the point if the Senator desires to proceed. Mr. BERRIEN. If, in the view of the Chair, I have departed from the rules of order, I will cheerfully acquiesce. The PRESIDENT. The Senator from Georgia will proceed. Mr. BERRIEN. Sir, the single question presented to our consideration is the validity of the first election. I say, the single question which must ultimately be presented to the consideration of the Senate is the validity of that first election; because if that first election be valid, all the subsequent acts, whether legislative or executive, must be invalid. And therefore to allow to the certificate of a Governor, founded on those facts which are in evidence, such an effect, as would destroy the validity of that first election to a certain extent before the Senate has inquired into it, would in my judgment be a manifest error. Sir, I did not rise for the purpose of discussing this question, and I should not perhaps have gone so far in the observations which I have made but for the suggestion of a departure on my part from the rules of order. I depart not from the order of the discussion. I maintain, according to my view of the subject, that the prima facie evidence afforded by the certificate granted by the Governor is so far controlled by the exemplification of the legislative record, that it would be improper for the Senate to act on this subject so as to advance the interest either of one or the other of these parties, until an investigation shall have been had by a select committee upon the plenary evidence now before us which, in deciding the question the Senate must ultimately decide, the validity of the first election, will, if that validity be affirmed, relieve the Senate from the consideration of all other questions. Mr. FOOTE, of Mississippi. I stated before my own recollection of a very recent precedent in this body. I find my recollection to be that of every member of the body with whom I have had a consultation. It was the case of a Senator from Illinois, [Mr. SHIELDS.] His right to his seat was Legislatures of the States, and does nothing more. gravely disputed. We decided to admit him to The reason why I rose before, and called the honorable Senator from Georgia to order-I hope in a very respectful manner-was, that it seemed to me that his line of remark would necessarily open a field for discussion to a very considerable extent, and give rise to a great deal of feeling, and ught more or less embarrass our action in this matter. My impression is yet, that the most expedient course to be pursued would be for the bonorable Senator from Indiana to withdraw his motion, and allow the one intimated by the honorable Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CLAY] to be submitted in its place. We could then settle the question very easily; and while the whole subject vis referred to a committee, the State of Florida would be fully represented in this body. If my friend will not do that, his refusal may oblige some of us to move a modification, to strike out all after the word "Resolved" of his resolution, and in lieu of it a proposition to admit the honorable Senator from Florida to his seat at once. I shall accordingly make that motion, unless my frend will, in the spirit of compromise for which I know he is distinguished-allow the course of proceeding which I have intimated, to be adopted. If he will withdraw his motion I think we could get at the point, and have it settled at once, so far as the prima facie proceeding is concerned. Mr. MASON. My attention has been called to this question to some extent. I think that at the last session the gentleman who was then the Senator from Florids, [Mr. YULEE,] and whose term expired on the 4th of March last, presented to the Senate an extract from the journals of the Legislature of Florida, with a view, as he stated at the time, according to my recollection, to call the attention of the Senate to the fact of an election which had been made by that Legislature, and which he suggested had resulted in his favor. The only action of the Senate upon it at present, I presume, will be such as to enable this body, holding the scales perfectly even between these gentlemen, to make the inquiry which necessarily devolves upon us in such a manner as to discharge the duty faithfally which the Senate owes to the country and to the State of Florida. It does seem to me, from the consideration that I have been able to bestow upon this subject, that where a gentleman presents himself to the Senate with a return, in its technical and legal sense, showing that he has been elected to this body, it is necessarily to be received as prima facie evidence of his election, and, according to the usage of the Senate, and I believe of all deliberative bodies, he takes his seat, and awaits any controversy that may subsequently arise respecting his right to that seat. But if the gentleman presents himself without a return in its technical and legal sense, and any serious doubt is entertained and is presented as to the validity of his election, he then appears, I apprehend, without having this prima facie evidence in his favor. Now, if I understand the meaning of the term “prima facie evidence," it means necessarily that it is competent evidence; it must be evidence just as competent as that which will prove the fact legitimately, and the only effect of such evidence is to shift the burden of proof upon the party who contests the fact thus proven. The Constitution of the United States, according to my examinaion, has three provisions upon this subject. The first lodges the right to elect the Senator in the 6 New Jersey presented themselves with the prima facie evidence, and the result of the political majority of the House was to be changed as that went one way or another. That was a very unfortunate circumstance, under which the rights of individuals were to be settled. Fortunately, in this case there is nothing of that sort. I presume both these gentlemen are sound on the great questions that have disturbed the country, and that have been. so happily settled. There can, therefore, lature of the State. The next provision is in sec- be no difficulty on that score; and the political tion 4, article 1, and provides that "the times, majority here is so decisive and so decided that it places, and manner of holding elections for Sen- cannot be disturbed even by the presence of what ators and Representatives shall be prescribed in Free-Soilers have got smuggled into the Senate. each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Mr. FOOTE, of Mississippi. I rise to a point 'Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter of order. I do not think the gentleman is discuss'such regulations, except as to the places of choosing anything now before us. The question of 'ing Senators." And the third provision is in free-soil is in no way connected with the subject. section 5, same article, which provides that" each I am always glad to hear the gentleman on any House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, other subject. I am a non-agitator, and am opand qualifications of its own members," &c. posed to his agitating that question. I know that Now, the Constitution does not prescribe how he has an unfortunate weakness which disables the fact of the election shall be certified to the Sen- him from discussing anything without bringing ate, but leaves that power with the Legislatures it in. of the States. I have not looked-for I have not had time-further than to the legislation of Virginia-my own State-upon that subject. I find that the State of Virginia has prescribed the form of the return. The first Senators that were elected under the Constitution were elected in 1778. It is provided by law that the Clerk of the House of Delegates shall notify the Governor of the election of Senators, and the Governor shall cause the credentials to be made out under the seal of the Commonwealth, and sent to the Senator elect, to be presented to the Senate of the United States. It prescribes the form of the credentials, which is, in effect, a certificate from the government that the Senator, A B, has been chosen, in pursuance of the Constitution, by the General Assembly of the State of Virginia. That is, prima facie, competent and sufficient evidence of the fact of the election in the manner and form prescribed by law. And under such returns I apprehend that the party thus certified to be elected will have the right to take his seat in this body, and then await the result of any controversy that may arise. But in the present case there is no such return. In the State of Florida there is no law, as I am informed, prescribing the mode in which the fact of the election shall be certified. The Governor has certified that fact in the case now before us, but without the authority of law for so doing. Another gentleman has presented an exemplified copy of what he claims to have been an election of Senator by the Legislature of Florida. I am informed— that gentleman [Mr. YULEE] has placed in my hands, at my request, the legislation of Florida upon that subject that it makes the Secretary of the Commonwealth the keeper of the journals of the Legislature, and gives to that Secretary the power to exemplify, under the great seal of the Commonwealth, all papers of that character. It seems to me, then, that if there be a return at all, in its technical and legal sense, it is the exemplification of the proceedings of the Legislature, which has been certified under the great seal of the Commonwealth, and which is presented by the gentleman [Mr. YULEE] who claims to have been elected by the first action of the Legislature upon that subject. That is an exemplification in pursuance of the law of Florida by the keeper of the journals of the proceedings of its Legislature. I submit these remarks with very great deference, in the belief that there is before us no correct return of the election of Senator, and, there fore, the burden of proof has not been shifted, but the parties stand in æquale jure, and that the proper course for us to pursue is the course indicated by the Senator from Indiana, [Mr. BRIGHT,] to refer this matter to a committee. Mr. HALE. As has been well said, it is proper that the Senate should keep itself in such a situation that no undue advantage should be given to one or other of the gentlemen claiming the seat. It strikes me to be a matter of very great moment that this question should be settled aright. And it also strikes me that it is a peculiarly fortunate time, and that the circumstances attending the question are peculiarly fortunate also to enable the Senate to settle it irrespective of any extraneous considerations. It is a very different case from that which occurred in the other wing of the Capitol a few years ago, when the members from The PRESIDENT. The Senator from New Hampshire understands that the question is on the reference to a committee. Mr. HALE. I suppose the Chair understands the question from my remarks. The honorable Senator from Mississippi should remember that we have not all had so much experience on these questions as he has had, and possibly some of us have not heard so much about them. I was referring to these things not in a mere light and frivolous way, but as one of the series of advantages in which the Senate is placed, by which it can consider the subject irrespective of all extraneous considerations. But to come to the naked merits of the question, I ask, with great deference, any of the older members of the Senate-I would not have spoken, being a young man, had not the young gentleman from Mississippi set the example-I ask any of the old or young members of the Senate, and middle-aged ones too, if they know of an instance in which a Senator has presented his credentials in the ordinary form who has been refused his seat? I put this question entirely irrespective of the ulterior merits of this case. How was it in the case of the honorable Senator from Illinois? A question arose there; an objection was made, and the Senator stood in his seat holding in his hand evidence which would disqualify him just as much as if five hundred contestants had been here. That fact was known to the Senate; and yet, in the face of it, the Senator was unanimously admitted to take his oath and his seat, and then in a few days an investigation was had. But while the contest is going on, the individual presenting the common evidence which you and I and every member of the Senate have the certificate from the executive officer of the Commonwealth-is entitled to his seat. The honorable Senator from Florida comes within the category. I presume it is not known to one quarter or one half of the Senate, whether, in the various States of the Union there is any statute authorizing the Governor to certify the proceedings of the Legislature. I do not know that there is such a one in my State. I doubt if there be. But that is not the question. The question is, whether it is the ordinary evidence the evidence upon which the Senate ordinarily acts. They do not know whether there is any act of the Legislature of the State authorizing the Chief Magistrate to present the certificate. You have just sworn in one Senator [Mr. FISH] who presented no certificate from the Governor of his State. He simply presented the evidence of the doings of the two houses of the Legislature. The gentleman from Florida, I presume, presents the ordinary evidence which Senators from that State present. It seems to me, that if we adhere to the course always pursued heretofore-that is, that the gentleman having prima facie evidence shall take his seat-we do not confirm him in his seat a moment, or prejudice the claims of the contestant. I hope this course will be adhered to, and that the Senator from Florida will be allowed to take his seat, and then let the thing take the course suggested by the Senator from Indiana. But it seems to me that until he has taken his seat we are departing from the usual course of the Senate. I am not a great stickler for States rights-I mean in the popular, cant sense of the phrase. I am not one of those who believe that we are thirty-one sovereign States. I believe the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. FooTE] does. I do not believe in that magniloquent idea of State sovereignty. Still, I think there is some respect due to the States, and that the courtesy with which the Senators from the States are always treated on presenting prima facie evidence, should govern the Senate with respect to the honorable Senator from Florida. It seems to me that he should take his seat, and that the matter should then take the course suggested by the honorable Senator from Indiana. Mr. SEWARD. I think there is no doubt about the principle, that a person who presents prima facie evidence of his election as a Senator must be admitted. We all agree about that. The question here in this case, however, is, whether there are not two persons presenting such evidence in support of conflicting claims. The Senator from Florida, [Mr. MORTON,] in behalf of one candidate, presents the Governor's certificate of election, or, what is to the same effect, a commission founded on an election or appointment by the Legislature. Such evidence has been received by the Senate as prima facie from the earliest history of the Government, and therefore, if unopposed, would be ample and adequate now. But the same Senator presents, in behalf of another candidate, certified proceedings of the Legislature of Florida, which, he claims, show that he was duly chosen or appointed by that body. This form of evidence has always been accepted by the Senate also. No Senator from the State of New York ever brought a commission or certificate from the Governor. All of them have brought here credentials given by the Legislature, or certificates by their officers, authenticating their action, and nothing more. ascertained, the presiding officer considering that there was no election, the Legislature proceeded to elect, and the gentleman who now claims to take the oath was elected. To call that first proceeding, therefore, an election, and to call that election a credential, is, I think, a great abuse of terms. The only evidence of any election which we have, is the certificate of the Governor. And here, allow me to say, with great deference to the Senator from Georgia, [Mr. BERRIEN,] that I think a great error in his argument was to assume two classes of evidence, and then to bring before the Senate prima facie evidence and plenary evidence, and the plenary evidence overruling the prima facie, that that prima facie evidence should be deprived of any effect. Now, I deny, in the first place, that plenary evidence is before us, legally and formally, according to that usage which constitutes a law of deliberative bodies. But let us push this argument a little further. In the case, so often mentioned, of the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. SHIELDS,] there was plenary evidence, according to the argument of the Senator from Georgia; there was the evidence before the Senate of his being an alien at the time of his election, but there was also the prima facie evidence of his having been elected by the Legislature of his State. And how did the Senate treat this description of evidence, plenary and prima facie? Why, they did not look at the plenary, as it has been called; they were governed solely by the prima facie. They admitted him to his seat; and were not governed by the plenary, because the time had not arrived for it to have any effect. That time was after the Senator had received the oath and taken his seat, and when the question of the validity of his election should come up before the Committee of Elections, or some other mode of investigation. We might push this a little further: Take the case of a Thus each candidate submits sufficient prima member of the House of Representatives. A prefacie evidence, and they are equal in position.sents his return of his election. B presents a recThis is so, subject to one question. The legislative ord of evidence-plenary, according to the argucertificate, after reciting what Mr. YULEE claims to ment of the Senator from Georgia-showing that A be an election, shows that the presiding officer de- had not been legally elected, but that, if deprived of cided that there was no election, and the Legisla- certain illegal votes which had been given to him, ture proceeded to a new election. But that in- he would be found to have obtained only a minorvolves the question, whether what had already beenity, while B, the contestant, had really a right to done constituted an election or not. It is under- the return, and therefore a right to his seat. Here stood that fifty-eight members of the Legislature is the prima facie evidence, and here is the plenary attended: twenty-nine voted for Mr. YULEE, and evidence; but did you ever hear any instance of twenty-nine cast blank ballots. If these be counted that kind where a legislative body, upon the preas adverse ballots, then Mr. YUEEE was not elected. sentation of the return, would go into that which If they be counted as no ballots, or as nothing, then is called the plenary evidence, and decide upon the he was elected. Now, I have no judgment formed case as to who was entitled to his seat? Did you on that question. The bias of my mind is adverse ever hear of it, except perhaps in the memorable to the latter view. But it is a question, a real instance referred to, which arose from consideraquestion, a grave question. I do not see how I tions to which I shall not advert because they are can vote for the admission of the candidate holding unpleasant? But invariably the practice is to adthe Governor's certificate, without deciding this minister the oath to the man having in his pocket question, which I wish to hear discussed. In the return, and let him who contests the seat come order to do exact justice, therefore, I shall vote for forward, by petition or some other mode, and claim the motion of the Senator from Indiana, to refer it. Here, I say, if you go into the journal of the to a select committee. Legislature of Florida, which 1 think is entirely out of order and informal, it proves there was no election in the first instance, and therefore no credentials. It proves, according to the legislative sense, that there was no election. The Legislature afterwards proceeded to make an election; and the Governor has given the certificate of it. The only question which can arise at any stage of this proceeding, even after it is referred to a committee, is whether you will overrule the decision of the Legislature, and declare, contrary to their judgment, that an election was made of Mr. YULEE, when they declared that there was no election, and proceeded to elect. I do not see that the precedent in the case of the Senator from Illinois [Mr. SHIELDS] touches this question. That Senator presented his credentials, and there was no adverse claimant. If I recollect aright, there was alleged to be evidence that he was not qualified to accept the place; but there was no question as to his having been elected or appointed to it by the Legislature of the State. There was but one certificate, or one prima facie case, made out. On these considerations, as at present advised, I shall vote for the motion of the honorable Senator from Indiana. Mr. CLAY. Feeble as I am, I cannot refrain from making a few additional observations. There is no doubt of the duty and the right of this body to determine all questions of elections of its members. The question is as to the method of doing this, and that question has been settled, I believe, by every deliberative body upon earth. It is this: If there is a contest, by two claiming the same seat, the party having the return takes the seat, and the other party presents his petition claiming it; that petition is referred to a committee; it is reported upon by the committee and acted upon by the body. Now, one very great error committed, as I conceive, by the gentleman who last addressed you, was to treat that Journal as an election-to consider it as a credential. It is no such thing. When you look into it, you find twenty-nine votes given for one person, and twenty-nine blanks. Upon that result having been see, Mr. GWIN gave notice of his intention to ask leave to introduce A bill to authorize and direct the payment of certain moneys into the treasury of the State of California which were collected in the ports of said State as a revenue upon imports, since the ratification of the treaty of peace between the United States and the Republic of Mexico, and prior to the admission of said State into the Union; A bill to establish a branch mint of the United States in the State of California; A bill to provide for the location and construction of a central national railroad from the Mississippi river to the Pacific ocean; A bill to reduce the rates of postage on newspapers, and to establish a uniform rate of postage on letters throughout the United States; A bill to establish a line of ocean mail steamers from San Francisco in California, via the Sandwich Islands, to Shanghai in China; A bill to pay the expenses incurred for the suppression of Indian hostilities in California; A bill granting the right of way for, and to aid in the construction of, a line of telegraph from the Mississippi river to the Pacific ocean; A bill to create a Board of Commissioners for the settlement of claims for military services in the State of California; A bill to establish a navy-yard and naval depôt in California; A bill to establish assay offices of the Mint of the United States at Sacramento City and Stockton, in California; and A bill to provide for the survey of the public lands in California, the granting of donation privileges therein, and for other purposes. Mr. CHASE gave notice of his intention to ask leave to introduce a bill to grant to the State of Ohio the unsold and unappropriated public lands remaining in that State. Mr. WALKER gave notice of his intention to ask leave to introduce A bill to authorize the Governor of the State of Wisconsin to select and locate other lands in lieu of such as had been sold, in the tract granted to aid in the improvement of the Fox and Wisconsin rivers, in Wisconsin; A bill to grant to the State of Wisconsin a quantity of land to aid in the construction of a railroad from Milwaukie in Wisconsin, by way of Watertown, to Prairie La Corsse, on the Mississippi river; A bill to grant to the State of Wisconsin a quantity of land to aid in the construction of a railroad from Fond du Lac to Janesville in Wisconsin; A bill to cede the public lands of the United States to the States respectively in which they are situated; and Mr. BRIGHT. I did not intend, by the motion I made, to indicate an opinion as to the right of either party claiming the seat. My object was A bill to increase the jurisdiction of the United to expedite the business of the body. I States district court for the district of Wisconsin. however, from indications around me, that the Mr. DODGE, of Iowa, gave notice of his intenmotion I made will be calculated perhaps to em- tion to ask leave to introduce a bill for the imbarrass Senators and prolong the debate. Believ-provement of the navigation of the Upper Mising that the contestant in this case will not be at all prejudiced by permitting the gentleman having the certificate to be sworn in, I shall withdraw my motion. I do it somewhat at the instance of the contestant himself. I have no objection to the gentleman taking the oath. Mr. CLAY. I move, then, that the gentleman Mr. MALLORY then took the oath of office. sissippi river. Mr. JONES gave notice of his intention to ask leave to introduce a bill to grant land to the State of Iowa, to aid said State in the construction of a railroad from Dubuque to Keokuk, and from Davenport to the Missouri river. He also presented the petition of Henry M. Rice, praying for a grant of land for the construction of a railroad from the St. Louis river of Lake Superior, via St. Paul, in Minnesota Territory, to Dubuque, in the State of Iowa. RECEPTION AND ENTERTAINMENT OF KOS SUTH. Mr. FOOTE, of Mississippi. I beg leave to notify the Senate that to-morrow, as soon as I can do so, after the reception of the President's Message, I shall ask leave to introduce a joint resolution in relation to the reception and entertainment of Louis Kossuth, Governor of Hunary. I may venture to remark, that I shall do so In unison with the Administration, and somewhat at the instance of the Secretary of State, and after fuli consultation with as many of my friends in this body as I have had an opportunity of confering with. I would like to get an informal order for the printing of this resolution, so that honorale gentlemen may have a chance of reading it and seeing that there is no mischief in it whatever; so that it may to-morrow morning be unanimously adopted. By unanimous consent, the resolution was ordered to be printed, as follows: Jaint Resolution in relation to the reception and entertamment of Louis Kossuth, Governor of Hungary, in the United States. Be it, &c., That a joint committee of the two Houses of Congress, to consist of members of the Senate and members of the House of Representatives, be appointed by The presiding officers of the respective Houses to make suitable arrangements for the reception of Louis Kossuth, Governor of Hungary, on his arrival in the United States, and communicate to him assurances of the profound respect entertained for him by the people of the United States; and tender to him, on the part of Congress, and in the name of the people of the United States, the hospitalities of the Metropolis of the Union. MAINE. Moses McDonald, Charles AndrewI, NEW HAMPSHIRE. Charles H. Peaslee, Jared Perkins, VERMONT. RHODE ISLAND. NEW YORK. John G. Floyd, Obadiah Bowne, Emanuel B. Hart, J. H. Hobart Haws, George Briggs, James Brooks, Gilbert Dean, William Murray, Marius Schoonmaker, Josiah Sutherland, Jr., David L. Seymour, John L. Schoolcraft, Alexander H. Buell, NEW JERSEY. PENNSYLVANIA. Thomas M. Bibighaus, DELAWARE. George Read Riddle. MARYLAND. Richard I. Bowie, John S. Millson, SOUTH CAROLINA. GEORGIA. Joseph W. Jackson, ALABAMA. MISSISSIPPI.J D. B. Nabers, LOUISIANA. David T. Disney, Joseph Cable, James Lockhart, ILLINOIS. Willis Allen, MISSOURI. ARKANSAS. MICHIGAN. FLORIDA. E. Carrington Cabell. CALIFORNIA. The CLERK announced that two hundred and eighteen members had answered to their names, and that there was a quorum present. ELECTION OF SPEAKER. Mr. JONES, of Tennessee, moved that the House proceed to the election of Speaker viva voce; which motion was agreed to. Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I believe nominations are now in order? The CLERK. They are in order. Mr. CAMPBELL nominated Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. Mr. RICHARDSON. I understand that nominations for Speaker are not necessary. The CLERK. The gentleman from Illinois is correct. Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. Against the will of the House, then, I am certainly not disposed to make any nomination. I desire simply to say, that for one, I shall vote for LINN BOYD, of Kentucky, for Speaker-not because he has received the nomination of a caucus, but because I know him to be a sound Democrat, and a tried and thorough compromise and Union man. As such shall vote for him for Speaker. Mr. CARTTER. I desire to say that I feel very happy in concurring with the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. JONES,] and shall vote for LINN BOYD for Speaker, because he is the nominee of the Democratic party. CAUCUS NOMINATIONS-THE COMPROMISE. Mr. STANLY. I should be glad to know if there is any difficulty about the nomination between our friends upon the other side of the House? A VOICE: None whatever. Mr. STANLY. But something is the matter. A VOICE. Oh, we will settle that by a vote. Mr. STANLY. But I have heard of some trouble about these compromise matters; and since the ball has been started, I should be glad if the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. JONES,] or the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. CARTTER,] would give the country some little information upon this subject. We want to know how far a coalition which has existed elsewhere, is to be brought forward and sanctioned by the votes of this House. One gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] has been nominated by a gentleman from Ohio. There has been a secession from our ranks on account of the adoption of the compromise measures. I want to know how far the compromise measures have been repudiated by our friends on the other side of the House, for I understand they have been repudiated. Mr. SAVAGE. It is not an uncommon thing for individuals to console themselves in their misfortunes by seeking out the misfortunes of others. I imagine that if the gentleman would turn to his own side of the House, he would find ample need of consolation. [Laughter.] I am not aware of any misfortune in our ranks. [Cries of "Call the roll!" "Call the roll!" from all parts of the Hall.] Mr. CAMPBELL. I do not know that it is proper to discuss the merits of the various gentlemen who may be presented as candidates for the Speakership. I do not design doing so. I desire simply to say, that as for the gentleman whose name I have presented to the House, he is as true a friend to the Union as there is in the Union; and I believe he is just as good a Whig as can be found in the Union. As to the compromise measures, hope those gentlemen who are so much opposed to agitation will not bring forward those measures for discussion so early in the session. I am against agitation just at this particular time. Ido not want to plunge this House into another revolution such as we had in our efforts to organize the last Congress. I would suggest, therefore, to the honorable gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. STANLY,] and to the honorable gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. JONES,] and to my colleague,[Mr. CARTTER,] that perhaps the less said upon this matter just now the better. When the time comes, should gentlemen insist upon agitation, we will be ready for it. We will take care not to throw the first stone. · Mr. CARTTER made some remark inaudible to the Reporter. Mr. CAMPBELL continued. I have not said one word in relation to the merits of the compromise measures, because I do not wish to get up agitation so early in the session. We shall have enough of it after a while, but I do not think it prudent to begin now. hope, therefore, that the roll will be called. [Cries of "Call the roll!" "Call the roll!"] Mr. BROOKS. The honorable gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. SAVAGE] has tauntingly advised us Whigs before we proceed to a vote, that instead of reproaching the Democratic party, we first heal the differences in our own ranks. It is good advice; and but for that advice from the other side of the House I should not have said a word upon this occasion, nor have had the opportunity I now have of informing the gentleman that the breaches in the Whig party have been healed. I now have the pleasure of informing not only that gentleman, but all others associated with him in his party connection, that the Whigs of this Congress assembled this morning in large numbers Several MEMBERS. How many? Mr. BROOKS. Enough to give a decided and emphatic expression for the Whig partyCries of "How many were there?" Mr. BROOKS. There were fifty or sixty pres ent, and by a clear unequivocal resolution they have acquiesced in the compromise measures. [Laughter.] Well, I see that gentlemen laugh at the paucity of our numbers! Ay, it is our misfortune that we have no one hundred and forty members upon the floor of the House, as they have; but it is not charitable to laugh at us for that. We have but seventy or eighty Whig members in all, but it is probable that we could largely increase the number if we were no more particular about principles than they are. Nearly all of those who were in the city this morning assembled in the Capitol, and expressed their opinion in favor of acquiescence in the finality of the compromise measures. Our breaches have thus been healed. But how is it with the gentlemen upon the other side of the House? How is it that Whig northern men, who are the defenders of these compromise measures, are deserted by Democratic gentlemen from other portions of the country who profess great devotion to them, but who are unwilling to sustain and defend those measures, or to make any record that they do sustain them? I have no doubt that the gentlemen upon the other side can, upon the single principle set forth or made known by the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. JONES,] succeed in effecting an election: for the honorable gentleman from Tennessee who opened the ball, says he votes for Mr. BOYD because he is in favor of the compromise measures. I have no doubt that a very large majority of this House is in favor of acquiescing in those measures. The Whigs now are nearly all upon that platform. If that be the only principle upon which the gentleman from Kentucky is nominated by the gentleman from Tennessee, he shall have my vote with all my heart. But the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CARTTER] rises and says that he votes for Mr. BOYD not because he is a friend of the compromise measures, but because he is the nominee of the Democratic caucus. Here is a distinction and a decided difference, and all the difference in the world between the Democracy of Ohio and Tennessee. I should like to know in which State is taught the true Democratic faith? I should like to know by which of the expounders I am to be educated? There must be others, even Democrats, groping as much in the dark as myself. I see in the seats just before me two highly honorable and very distinguished gentlemen in the northern Democratic ranks, [Mr. RANTOUL and Mr. CLEVELAND,] and if the honorable gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. JONES] teaches the true faith, he exiles them from the Democratic party at once; but if the honorable gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CARTTER] be the exponent, they are the real Democrats, and the gentleman from Tennessee himself is but an interloper in the ranks. Wisconsin, too, and the gentlemen who represent it, are deeply interested in having this dispute settled at once. And so are other Democratic States, provided Democracy does not mean one thing at the North and altogether another thing south of this. At the opening of a Congress, with a Democratic majority of sixty in this House, we have a candidate for Speaker formally presented to us upon principles utterly variant. Tennessee presents him upon the principle that he is in favor of the compromise measures, and Ohio not that he is in favor of them, but only because he is the nominee of the Democratic party! Now, it is of some considerable importance to us from New York, upon all sides of this issue, to know where we stand before we begin to stand at all. The gentlemen upon the other side have represented their party as discordant and belligerent upon measures which, in their vital importance to this country, rise above all party, and before which all party issues dwindle into insignificance. It is important, therefore, for me to know where I am to stand, and how I am to vote, before I vote at all. If the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. Born,] who is the nominee of the other side, is the candidate only of the compromise measures, as the gentleman from Tennessee presents him, am ready to vote for him, and he shall cheerfully have my vote, with all my heart in the bargain. If, on the other hand, he is presented as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CARTTER] presents him, as the nominee of my distinguished colleague [Mr. PRESTON KING,] who figured conspicuously in the Democratic caucus, (as his talents enable him to figure every where with distinction,) and of other northern Democratic gentlemen from our State, I who, with pleasure, no doubt, follow his lead in this matter, why, it is impossible for me to vote for him. I want to vote for a man who is in favor of acquiescence in the compromise measures, and not for any candidate the nominee of a party that is opposed to them. I think it a matter of the very gravest importance, that the organ of this the popular branch of the Government, should, by his election, and the mode and manner of it, be made to express the opinion that the painful and startling issues of the last Congress cannot be reopened in this. I think it due to the North and the South both, that they should this day know, in the nomination or selection of a Speaker, that the slavery firebrand is to be played successfully with no longer I think, if I may be allowed to speak so freely, it is not only dishonest but dangerous for a party with sixty majority in this House, to organize by pandering one way to abolition Democracy North, and to slavery Democracy South. It is riding the wind to reap the whirlwind, and it is a whirlwind that some of us Whigs, at great personal sacrifice in the last Congress, quelled once, and that we do not want to be called upon to quell too often. It is of importance, therefore, for all of us to know where we are, who we are, and where we are tending. If the Democratic party is one thing in Tennessee and altogether another thing in Ohio; one thing in Massachusetts and Connecticut and another thing in Pennsylvania; if it be nothing but a struggle for the spoils, and means to use the slavery excitement, sectionally and at all hazards, to get them; if it be thus a sacrifice of the country for the purpose of obtaining the organization of this House or the Presidency; if Democracy be, in the Southern country, the agitation of the slavery question so as to overthrow the Union, and in the northern country abolition, to bear down all of us Whigs who are defenders of the compromise bills;-if that be Democracy, why, it certainly is not in my power to vote for any nominee of the Democratic caucus. On the contrary, upon the single principle that the gentleman from Tennessee has indicated, I could give that nominee, with great pleasure, my vote. I hope, therefore, to hear from gentlemen on the other side upon what platform they do really intend to stand their candidate; whether he is to stand upon one leg or two legs, or whether he go like a quadruped, walking on all fours. For that gentleman himself I have the highest respect. I know where he has stood, and what he has been, and I stood with him, side by side. I have not one word to say against him. I have no right to judge what is or what ought to be his position. But I know enough of him to feel sure, that if he is unchanged since the last Congress, he can receive no pleasure in taking a nomination from a party which has refused to indorse those measures of which he was so earnest an advocate, and in the passage of which he took so conspicuous a part. If a caucus means anything, it means to express a coincidence of opinion; but from the demonstrations on the other side of the House, it would seem that there was no such coincidence of opinion. There is, then, as one of the gentlemen from Tennessee [Mr. B. meant Mr. JONES] insinuated, disorder and discord upon the other side of the House; harmony and concord upon this. Mr. SAVAGE. The gentleman totally misrepresents me. I made no such statements or admission. I know of no party misfortunes among the Democracy. I merely stated that the gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. STANLY,] not finding any comfort in his own party, was looking for consolation abroad, by imagining some one more unfortunate than himself. His conduct is good evidence as to the condition of your party, but none as to mine. Mr. BROOKS. I have only to say, in conclusion, that the Whig party has, in its congressional caucus, taken that sort of action which presents to the country a harmonious and united front, and on that front they mean to stand. If any portion of the Whig party are dissatisfied with our position, let them secede and go over to the other side, where all sorts of principles are likely to prevail, or can find a refuge and accommodation, because no expression of opinion has been made, or can be made, so different are the opinions of that party. in the northern and southern sections of this Union. Mr. MEADE. Mr. Clerk, I was more than gratified to learn from the gentleman from New York, (Mr. BROOKS,] that the Whig party had healed all their old difficulties, and had united for the purpose of supporting the compromise measures which passed Congress-the slave bill and all. I understand that he has stated it as a fact before the country, that the Whig party of the North are now opposed to agitation, and are perfectly willing to execute every article in the compromise, slave bill and all. I understand, then, that there is no division of opinion amongst the Whigs of the North upon that subject. Do I understand that declaration to be made unqua ifiedly? Mr. BROOKS. I will say that the Whig caucus, this morning, by an almost unanimous expression of opinion, gave utterance to an acquiescence of the compromise measures, and that henceforth opposition to that resolution here will be disorganization. Mr. MEADE, (continuing.) Mr. Clerk, that explanation of the gentleman from New York [Mr. BROOKS] is fraught with a good many things addressed to the reflection of the South, and the other portions of this Union who are in favor of the execution of the provisions of the compromise. I understand the Whig party of the North-those who were in attendance here this morning in caucus-represented probably about one fourth portion of that party. Do I understand the gentleman to say that the northern Whigs who attended that caucus will undertake to declare to this Union that their constituents, or even a majority of their constituents, will sustain them? or, in other words, that they reflect the sentiments of the large body of the Whig party of the North? and that that party are now prepared to stop agitation upon the slavery question, and to carry out faithfully the provisions in relation to the returning of fugitive slaves? Do I understand that pledge now to be given to the country? Mr. BROOKS. If the gentleman will permit me. The best explanation that I can make is to read the resolution that was adopted. Mr. MEADE. I have just now said that the Whig resolutions were passed by the Whigs of the South united with a small fraction of the Whigs of the North. That is what I understand to be the case. The whole body in attendance upon that occasion represented about one third part of the Whig party of the Union. Mr. BROOKS. Will the honorable gentleman permit me to add, that the majority of that caucus -a large majority-was from the northern States. There are not many Whig members in this House. The number of members there was between fifty and sixty. At the Democratic caucus there were eighty-three members out of one hundred and fortytwo. I will read the resolution that was adopted, with the permission of the gentleman: Resolved, That we regard the series of acts known as the adjustment measures, as forming in their mutual dependence and connection a system of compromise the most conciliating and the best for the entire country that could be obtained from conflicting sectional interests and opinions, and that therefore they ought to be adhered to and carried into full execution, as a final settlement in principle and substance of the dangerous and exciting subjects which they embrace. Mr. FOWLER. Will the gentleman allow me to speak a word in explanation? Mr. MEADE. Certainly, sir. Mr. FOWLER. Mr. Clerk, I was at that caucus. I moved to lay these resolutions upon the table. I stated, in connection with that motion, that I would not be bound by these resolutions. [Laughter and applause.] In my judgment there were about forty members there." I did not count them. I will further say, that in the vote to lay the resolutions upon the table, which was on a division by ayes and noes, I judge about one third were in favor of laying them on the table. [Laughter.] I will say in conclusion, Mr. Clerk, that I deem it my duty to have the facts known as they are. If I am called a seceder, so be it. I am a Whig, have always been a Whig, and probably will ever be a Whig. I mean to stand firmly where I always have stood. [Applause.] I shall not be bound by the resolutions of others, passed beforehand. I mean to act standing upon my own feet in this House, and elsewhere. Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I call the gentleman to order, as destroying the harmony of the Whig party. Mr. BROOKS. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. FOWLER] seceded from the Whig |