void, if the character of the printing be as it is represented to be by the chairman; and I think he represents the case correctly. That, however, is perhaps outside of the question now before us.

The honorable Senator from North Carolina [Mr. BADGER] was inchined to vote against the amendment until he was convinced by the remarks of the Senator from Arkansas that this would im-pose additional duties upon the Committee on Printing. I have read this section of the law of 1846 for the purpose of relieving his mind, and the minds of other Senators, upon that point; for it really does impose no additional duties.

Mr. BORLAND. The Senator from Indiana, [Mr. BRIGHT,] it seems to me, must perceive a very material difference in the cases to which he has referred. In the joint resolution of 1846, from which he has read, provision is made against a contingency that is supposed not likely to happen: that in case the public printer should viofate his contract, then the Committee on Printing should have power to employ somebody else to do the work and pay for it. It provides further that the public printer and his sureties shall be responsible for the difference between the contract price and the increased amount which shall be paid for the work. Such a case has not arisen since the Committee on Printing has been constituted.

There has been no case in which this duty has been performed; and although the committee might have to perform it, it is a provision against a contingency which was supposed not likely to happen, and not a prescribed duty. At the time the joint resolution passed, I suppose no one expected that the contractors would not fulfill their contracts. But here it is proposed to send the committee out beyond the walls of the Capitol to chaffer and make bargains. Nothing of the sort is done by any committee of either House. We have a Committee on Public Buildings, which takes charge of all matters relating to the public buildings; but that committee is not required to make contracts for building. There is a Commissioner of Public Buildings for that purpose. We have a Committee on the Contingent Expenses of the Senate. That committee, I suppose, audits the accounts for the fuel consumed, and the stationery used by the Senate; but do we send that committee out to contract with the wood haulers and paper makers of the country to supply the Senate? We have a Committee on Naval Affairs, but that committee does not make contracts for the building of ships of war. The Senator from California has referred to carrying the mails. The Committee on Naval Affairs pass on the policy or propriety of a particular measure, but it is not required to make contracts with persons for carrying the mails. Why, then, should we require the Committee on Printing, which was raised for the purpose of examining questions submitted to the Senate as to the propriety of printing documents, to go into market and perform a duty so different from any duty performed by other committees of the Senate! Why should you require that committee to contract with printers for doing this work? 1 can see no reason for it. It is without precedent. I adhere to my objections.

two Houses had ordered. That is, in substance, what the joint resolution of 1846 directs. Now, it is proposed to put the Committee on Printing in a new attitude to originate contracts and make bargains. Well, it shows, if anything were necessary to show it, how exceedingly unfortunate the joint resolution of 1846 was. It was unfortunate in many respects; unfortunate, as I think, in the whole contract system, which has produced nothing but difficulty, delay, bad paper, bad printing, and bad binding, for the Senate as well as for the House of Representatives; and unfortunate in this-a consequence flowing out of the first unfortunate step of the resolution-in introducing a joint committee of the two Houses to a function, which I believe was never before discharged by any committee. We are now to take a still further step, and put a committee of the two Houses in the attitude of making contracts and bargains. It seems to me that this is taking a step which the two Houses will find reason to repent. There is great force in the suggestion of the honorable Senator from Arkansas, that, whilst we have committees charged with a great many subjects relating to contracts, in no instance has any of these committees been charged with the making of contracts.

Mr. GWIN. Has not the Committee on the Library been required by the Senate to make a contract for the printing of the papers of Jefferson and Madison? This is a case in point. I appeal to the chairman of the Library Committee if that is not a fact.

Mr. PEARCE. The statement of the Senator is correct. The Committee on the Library were charged with the duty of attending to that mat

ter.

Mr. BADGER. If the honorable Senator had only adverted to the facts of that case, he would have seen that it had no reference to such a one as is now under the consideration of the Senate. When the Congress of the United States purchased the papers of the distinguished dead, to whom he has alluded, it was a subject of literary taste-it was a subject of Congressional and delicate discretion that must have been exercised by the committee of our body to determine which of those papers should be printed. It was not intended by Congress that the whole of the papers indiscriminately purchased should be printed at the expense of the Government, and it necessarily and properly devolved on its committee the difficult and delicate duty of making a selection. A just regard to the interests of the public made it necessary that that matter should be under the disposal of

the committee.

But I was about to say that my friend from Arkansas, in his zeal of illustration, (if he will permit me to say so,) fell into one grave errorhe undertook to refer to the functions discharged by the Committee on the Contingent Expenses of the Senate. I beg him to be more cautious hereafter he was touching a subject which should never be alluded to in open Senate. He knows very well that in one of the Departments of the Government which has charge of our external affairs, there is secret service money, and whoever heard any inquiries made with regard to that Mr. BADGER. Mr. President, there is nothing fund? The remark of the Senator was irregular. in the joint resolution of 1846, as I think was well I know it was not intentional. I was once a stated by the Senator from Arkansas, which is at member of the Committee to Audit and Control the all conclusive upon the objection which he has Contingent Expenses of the Senate. Unfortunately stated, and which I was inclined to support by for the Senate and for the country, I am no longer my vote. That joint resolution requires contracts so. [Laughter.] But still I cherish a very high for the printing to be made by the executive offi- respect for the confidential operations of that comcers of the two Houses. They advertise for pro-mittee, and I hope on no occasion hereafter to see posals. They receive proposals. They come to a decision. They award the contract. And then the resolution proceeds to make provision for cases, not, as some gentlemen have supposed, unlikely to happen, but I presume from the very nature of the joint resolution of 1846, to provide for a case which it was supposed would be very likely to happen; that is, a case wherein the contractor would not discharge his duty; and in such an event, it directs the Joint Committee on Printing to take such measures as should be necessary on account of the failure on the part of the contractor. They were to do what the emergency required. The law provides, that during the session of Congress, when there would be no opportunity of resorting to any other instrumentality, this joint committee should at once, and promptly, supply the means of doing the printing which the

such indiscretion committed by my friend, or by any other member of the body, as to allude to the particular functions which they discharge.

Mr. DODGE, of Iowa. I shall vote against the amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas; but lest I should seem discourteous towards him, as the chairman of the Committee on Printing, I desire to make an explanation of the reasons which influence my vote. I think that some reform is necessary in regard to our printing. I think something should be done by which efficiency would be secured, and when we order documents, that they will be printed in some reasonable time. I have received various letters

and communications from all parts of the country asking me for copies of the census returns. received some of them so long since that I have lost or mislaid them; and I do not know that I

could find them all. Now, I know, by repeated conversations with the worthy Secretary of this body, that he does not desire that this duty should be imposed upon him. I know that he has besought me, as a member of the body, to keep this duty off him.

In reply to the political argument of the Senator from Maryland, [Mr. PRATT,] I am ready to say, that so far as the bestowment of this job, or any other job which is proposed here, is concerned, I shall expect the Committee on Printing to give a preference to those of their own political faith; but I expect them to do it upon most reasonable and just terms. I believe that the Committee on Printing of this body is competent to discharge all and singular its duties; and if a comparison must be instituted between that Committee and the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House of Representatives, I believe, whether as Senators or as practical printers, I should give the committee the preference if the printing were my own or if it were to be done for the Senate. They have had experience in their station. As a member of the body, I have had something to do in retaining them in their present position for this session. I have been glad to help to replace them in the position which they have heretofore occu pied. I approved of their course during the last session, and I am disposed to sustain them in this position, believing, as I do, that they are more competent as practical printers, and better judges of what is economical and proper to be done under this contract than either the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Mr. BORLAND. Mr. President, I have not at all changed my views upon this subject. Before doing what I now rise to do, I wish to say a very few words. I reassert, and I do it with all candor and sincerity, that I am not competent to perform the duty which this resolution proposes to impose on me. I candidly confess that I do not know how to perform it, and I have not now time to learn. If the other members of the committee have this competency, they will have to perform the duty. If not, it will not be performed by the committee at all. Of this I now give fair notice to the Senate. I have deemed it my duty to make this statement. Whatever opinion other Senators may entertain of my competency for this business, I think I know what I am able to do; and I know that I am not competent to do this. I am not one of those who believe that a man cannot know himself. I have always thought that a man's capacity is better known to himself than to anybody else. I have looked somewhat into this matter, and I know I am not capable of performing this duty. For that reason, I do not wish to be obliged to perform it. But as I fear that my amendment may embarrass some of my friends, and as I am unwilling to impose duties on the executive officers of the two Houses of Congress which would involve them in any painful or injurious responsibility, or which their friends are unwilling that they should assume, I will withdraw the amendment which I have proposed; closing my remarks with a repetition of the assurance to the Senate that I am unable to perform the duty required by the resolution, and if it is imposed on the committee I shall not undertake it. I withdraw my amendment if it is in my power to do so.

The PRESIDENT. By unanimous consent the amendment can be withdrawn.

There being no objection, the amendment was withdrawn.

Mr. SMITH. I have some views which I desire to present to the Senate in regard to this subject, which will be very likely to occupy more time than remains at present according to the ordinary practice of the Senate. I would, therefore, be very glad to have this resolution postponed until to-morrow. I therefore move, if it meets the approbation of honorable members of the body, that the resolution be postponed until one o'clock to-morrow, and be made the special order for that time.

The motion was agreed to-ayes 22, noes 18. ASSIGNMENT OF PRIVATE BUSINESS. Mr. DOWNS. The bill for the relief of William Darby was under consideration yesterday, but it was then interrupted by the introduction of the distinguished stranger who then visited us. I hope it will now be disposed of. It was laid on

The PRESIDENT. The Chair will take this occasion to call the attention of the Senate to a resolution which was adopted some time since in these words:

"Resolved, That after the 1st day of January next Fridays of each week shall be set aside for the consideration of private claims, and that on those days private bills shall have priority over all other business.""

The Chair brings the subject to the consideration of the Senate in consequence of a different construction being put on this resolution as he understands by different Senators. There seems to be doubt as to whether it is intended that that day shall be exclusively set apart for private bills, and that they shall not be taken up on any other day, or whether they shall be taken up in regular order on the calendar as they are reached and yet have entire preference on Friday. The Chair is unwilling to give any construction of the resolution, inasmuch as it is for the Senate to decide what they intended when they adopted the resolution.

Mr. DOWNS. I think the Senate itself has put a construction on that rule. I recollect that a similar rule was in force two or three sessions ago, and the construction then was, that such a rule did not prevent private bills being considered when they were reached on the calendar in regular order, even though it was not on the day fixed.

I consider that the Senate has at his session put that construction on this rule, because yesterday they took up several private bills and disposed of them.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair, without consulting the Senate yesterday, finding them upon the general orders, took up several bills, which were ordered to a third reading. They have not been read a third time to-day, because the Chair kept them back until the Senate should decide whether private bills were to be acted upon on every day of the week or only on Friday.

Mr. DOWNS. It certainly was my construction, and the construction of the honorable Senator who offered the resolution, that fixing a particular day for the consideration of private bills should not deprive them of the privilege of being considered on other days when reached in their order, because it might very well happen that such a rule as that would do great injury to those whom it was intended to benefit. It very often happens that in the early part of the session we do not sit on Friday, and very often on those days private bills are necessarily interrupted by a press of other business. And if by fixing a particular day for the consideration of private bills, we cannot take them up at any other time, such a rule, instead of promoting the interests of parties, might subject them to great inconvenience.

I hope the Senate will agree with me in the construction which I have given to the rule, that when these bills are reached in their regular order in the calendar, they will be taken up as well as considered on Friday. I think that was the general understanding of the rule when it existed at previous

sessions.

Mr. HUNTER. I recollect distinctly that 1 opposed the resolution at the time it was introduced and one of the grounds that I took was, that it would work an injury to private claimants, for it would devote Friday to them, and they would be denied a place on the calendar, which they had hitherto enjoyed. It certainly could not have been the intention of the Senate to have given private bills a precedence over public bills, not only on Fridays but on all other days. They could not have intended by setting apart a day for their consideration, that on other days they should also have precedence over bills of general interest. Under the rules of the House of Representatives, Fridays and Saturdays are set apart for the consideration of private bills, and under these rules, they are not considered on any other days. I think such is the fair consequence of the establishment of such a rule; and therefore it was that I thought at the time of the adoption of this rule, that we would be better off if we adhered to the old practice of the Senate, and stood by the calendar. We would be better off if the Senate would return to the ancient rule. I suppose the rule must be construed as it was construed in the House of Representatives. If certain days are to be assigned to private bills, they ought to be confined to those

Mr. BADGER. There is nothing in the rule or resolution adopted by the Senate on the subject of private bills which either expresses or implies that these bills should not be in order on any other day of the week than Friday. The resolution simply declares that on Friday they shall have priority. On the other days they have no priority. There is nothing in the resolution which says they shall not be considered on any other day. There is nothing in the resolution to prevent them being considered when they are reached on the calendarno matter on what day. This is not the first instance in which the Senate has passed the resolution setting apart Friday for the consideration of private bills. It has been done at former sessions at which I have been here, and I have never heard it suggested before that in consequence of setting apart Friday for the consideration of private bills it was not in order to take them up on any other day, when they were reached on the calendar. There is nothing in the resolution-nothing in the practice of the Senate under former resolutions of the kind which sanctions the idea that by having Friday given to private bills they lose their chance on every other day of the week.

Mr. BRADBURY. Mr. President, I voted for the rule setting apart Friday for the consideration of private bills. I believed, that by assigning a particular day for their general consideration, our attention would be drawn to those bills which were matters of private concern, and that we should be more likely to give them a careful consideration, and discriminate between those which have merit and those which have not. One difficulty which I hoped to avoid, was the constant habit of springing upon the Senate the consideration of matters about which we necessarily could know nothing. If we are repeatedly called upon, and without any indication as to the time when to consider those matters which are not of such general concern, we necessarily pass our opinion upon them without the requisite information. If, however, we set apart a day, as the Senate has already done, for their consideration, every Senator has notice that such bills are to come up. I do not say that we should be confined to that day when they are reached on the calendar in their order. I would consider them on other days; but if, after having given them priority on one day, we will now say that we are to call them up irregularly, we shall have ourselves exposed to the difficulty to which we had hoped we had put an end, by setting apart a particular day. I hope, then, that private bills will not be brought up irregularly, but that we shall consider them only when reached in their order upon the calendar, or on Friday, except some good and satisfactory reason can be given for taking up a particular bill out of order. After having given them priority on one day, they should stand on the calendar until reached in regular order on other days. I hope, therefore, the motion of the Senator from Louisiana, a gentleman whom we would all very gladly accommodate, may not prevail, unless some particular reason can be given why the bill which he proposes should be taken up.

Mr. RUSK. Mr. President, all this opposition to private bills, it seems to me, proceeds, or seems to proceed, from the principle of guarding the Treasury of the United States. We have got into difficulty by almost repudiating all the debts of this Government. This is the way that fraudulent claims pass. Individuals who have claims against the Government, come forward and present them, and are delayed in one way or another until they become twelve, fifteen, or twenty years old, and all the facts are forgotten. Then it is that claims, sometimes not well-founded, are enabled to pass the Senate and the House of Representatives, and become a charge on the Treasury.

The rule, setting apart Friday for the consideration of private bills, has been adopted several times before by the Senate. It has never before been construed to exclude bills on any other day when reached on the calendar. There seems to be a general disposition to give private bills the goby. If we are to repudiate the debts of the Government, let us do it at once. What will be the consequence of the continuance of these claims? It will be to break up the individuals who have them, and to fill the Capitol with agents to get

them through, who will annoy every Senator. It is time that we should take up these bills and dis pose of them one way or the other. Let us reject or adopt them, and do it immediately, that indi viduals may have their claims decided while they are alive, and not leave their heirs to prosecute them when they die.

The PRESIDENT. The Senator is aware that it is simply for the Senate to decide what construction they will put on the resolution.

Mr. RUSK. That is the point to which I am trying to direct my attention.

Mr. HAMLIN. I wish to inquire whether it is the decision of the Chair that a formal motion should be submitted?

The PRESIDENT. The Chair was under the impression, though it has been stated otherwise by honorable Senators, that when a rule of this kind has prevailed heretofore, private bills were passed over on other days, and were taken up only on the day set apart for their consideration. Such was the impression of the Chair, but it is for the Senate, who adopted the resolution, to say whether it was intended that the general orders should be taken up as they stand on the calendar, whether of a public or private character; and that on Friday all questions of a public character should be excluded.

Mr. HAMLIN. I move, as the sense of the Senate, that the rule adopted by the Senate shall not affect the standing of the private bills on the calendar on other days.

Mr. BADGER. A motion is already pending. The PRESIDENT. The Chair does not consider that a motion is necessary. He has simply endeavored to ascertain the sense of the Senate as to the construction of the resolution. He wishes to conform to the view of the Senate.

Mr. HAMLIN. I voted for that resolution. If the Chair had not called attention to the sub

ject, I should never have dreamed that there could be any question about the matter. As has been well said by the Senator from North Carolina, what is not in the resolution does not belong to it.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair then understands that the construction put upon the resolution is, that the calendar shall be taken up in regular order, whether the bills are of a private or public nature; and that on Friday public bills are to be excluded, and private bills solely acted upon. Is that the understanding of the Senate?

66

[Several SENATORS. Agreed!" "Agreed !'']

The PRESIDENT. The Chair was under the

impression that it was necessary to bring the question to the notice of the Senate, because some Senators had entertained a different opinion from that expressed by the honorable Senator from Maine, and the honorable Senator from North Carolina, and others.

Mr. DOWNS. One of the honorable Senators from Maine [Mr. BRADBURY] thought that we should not take up private bills out of their order. I have moved to take up this bill because yesterday being a day of ceremony it was not disposed of. It would have been passed in five minutes, but for the arrival of our distinguished guest. That is the reason why I want it taken up and disposed of now. It will take but a short time.

WILLIAM DARBY'S RELIEF BILL.

The motion was agreed to, and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill for the relief of William Darby.

Mr. DOWNS. I concluded yesterday what I had to say in relation to this bill. It is one of very great merit. It was passed before by the Senate, and I hope we will pass it again. The gentleman for whose benefit it is intended is very old and very poor. I hope it will pass without opposition. I will not take up time by discussing

it.

Mr. FELCH. I believe there was a report made in this case some two or three years ago. I recollect that last year we voted on this question by yeas and nays, and I think the Senate was very nearly equally divided. I should like to hear the report read.

The report not being on the Secretary's desk, Mr. FELCH continued: If I understand the matter, there was a report from a select committee, of which Mr. Corwin, then a member of the Senate from Ohio, was chairman. That report was acted on that session. The bill has since been twice introduced on leave, but no new facta

320 CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION.

have been laid before the Senate. Last year, or the year before last, the bill passed the Senate. At that time I listened to the discussion, and was unable to discover any principle ever sanctioned by this Government on which this claim could be allowed. This applicant claims that he was once employed by the Government in making certain surveys in Louisiana. He received his pay, as others do who are employed as surveyors. He claims that he acquired certain information in regard to the geographical character of that country, which information was disposed of by him to an individual named Mellish, who published a map in Philadelphia about that time, and there was a difficulty between him and Mellish in regard to compensation. He alleges in his petition that no compensation was ever received. But I am not aware that upon that ground there is any reason why we should interfere, and grant from the public Treasury a compensation for a loss which may have resulted from any private con

tract.

He

I do not understand that this individual was employed by the United States to acquire the information for which he now claims compensation. I do not understand that we have received anything from him for the benefit of the Government, for which compensation should be paid. acquired certain geographical knowledge, and claims that in certain treaties-a treaty made with France, and a treaty made with Spain, in 1819, which referred to the Mellish map-that map being made use of, received virtually the sanction of this Government to such an extent that his private information was not afterwards valuable to him, and that, therefore, he could not sell any maps which he might make after that period. I do not understand that he made any maps, but that he acquired information from which he might have made them; and he claims that we destroyed the value of that property, because we referred to the. Mellish map in the treaties made with France and Spain. That is the whole foundation of the claim.

Now, if we are to pay for information which individuals derive from their own private enterprise, and surveys for the purpose of publishing maps and literary works of any kind, I take it that we shall have plenty of persons applying to us for compensation. I do not see how the facts stated in the petition and in the report are to be a proper foundation for this claim. I looked into the report a few days since, and I do not see how, from any facts there stated, it can result as a consequence that the United States are under an obIgation to pay this claim, unless we are under a general obligation, when an individual has become distinguished as a geographer, and has devoted his time and attention and talents to scientific purquits, to come forward and pay from the Treasury en that account. I do not see why we should pay this claim in this particular case.

Mr. BADGER. I wish to ask a question of the honorable Senator from Louisiana. Has not a bill, precisely in this form, passed the Senate heretofore? I understand from him that such a bill has passed this body. I wish, then, to say, without any further investigation of the subject, that that fact determines my vote. If we undertake to investigate and reinvestigate all the private bills that come before us, we shall never be able, whatever diligence we bestow on them, to do justice to one fiftieth part of the claims which come here.

For my own part it is with extreme difficulty I can be prevailed upon to vote against a private bill which comes before us with the sanction of all the members of a committee of this body. The Senate have already determined this case. They have determined that in equity this sum is properly due to this individual. I am therefore relieved from all further difficulty. I will not go into an investigation to ascertain whether that decision of the Senate was right or wrong. I presume it was right. I am satisfied it was right. I am sure it was right.

The report of the committee upon this claim having been procured, was read to the Senate. It

THURSDAY, JANUARY 8, 1852.

states that Mr. Darby was the first to furnish an accurate map of that portion of the territory of the United States lying west of the Mississippi, and bordering on the line between the United States and the Spanish dominions, as fixed by the treaty ceding Louisiana. The materials for a map procured by Mr. Darby, were used by Mr. Mellish, in his map of 1816. Mr. Darby was never remunerated for his services, which were of great value to the United States. The committee consider that $1,500 was not an adequate compensation, but as his claim was not a strictly legal one, the committee have allowed this sum, thinking it might afford some small recompense to Mr. Darby.

Mr. BERRIEN. I am very desirous of voting for this bill. I know the very worthy man for whose benefit it is intended. If this Government has availed itself of his labors, it is proper that he should receive compensation for them, but I desire to be informed why it is that this claim is presented at this late day? Why it has not been presented before to the notice of this body? The Senator from Louisiana can probably give me that information.

Mr. DOWNS. I do not know any other reason than the fact that this gentleman, who is now very old, has been in previous portions of his life in a more prosperous situation, and did not feel the necessity of presenting the claim. There may be another reason. In the early history of this Government there were not very liberal appropriations made for surveys and maps. Recently the Government has been very liberal in this respect; and I think it was very natural, when Mr. Darby saw the thousands of dollars which were appropriated for the surveys in California and elsewhere, that he should think it right to come forward and claim some little compensation for much greater services, rendered at a much earlier period, in sections of the country of so much importance.

Mr. SHIELDS. I should perhaps do myself injustice if I did not say a word or two in favor of this claim. I know this old gentleman well. When I had the honor to be at the head of the land office he was one of the clerks. I examined the claim at the time, and I know it would never have been presented to Congress had it not been for his very dire necessity. I am satisfied that there is not a more worthy man presenting a claim to the Congress of the United States. I am also satisfied that he performed very great services for the country at that time, and that he even declined remuneration for them, for he was then wealthy, as has been stated by the honorable Senator from Louisiana. He was then in prosperity, and is now poor and old, feeble and disabled. I found him in office, and I was afraid then that he was not able to discharge its duties. But I retained him there, because I felt that to turn him out would be turning out an old and serviceable man, on the charity of a cold and unfeeling world. I shall vote for the claim, and shall be very sorry to see it rejected.

Mr. BRADBURY. I would gladly vote for this bill, but I cannot regard it in any other light than as a gratuity. Therefore, without going into the facts of the case I wish to record my vote against it.

The bill was reported to the Senate, and on the question of ordering it to be engrossed for a third reading,

Mr. FELCH asked for the yeas and nays; and they were ordered; and, being taken, were-yeas 29, nays 11; as follow:

YEAS-Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Borland, Bright, Brodhead, Clemens, Dawson, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Downs, Fish, Geyer, Gwin, Hamlin, Houston, James, Jones of Iowa, McRae, Miller, Morton, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Seward, Shields, Smith, Spruance, and Walker-29.

NAYS-Messrs. Bayard, Berrien, Bradbury, Felch, Hunter, Jones of Tennessee, King, Norris, Sumner, Wade, and Whitcomb-11.

BILLS PASSED.

The following engrossed bills were severally read the third time and passed:

A bill for the relief of Charles Melrose;

A bill granting a pension to Sally T. Floyd,

NEW SERIES.....No. 14.

widow of George R. C. Floyd, late a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army of the United States;

A bill for the relief of Sidney S. Allcott; A bill for the relief of the heirs of Judith Worthen, deceased; and

A bill authorizing Victor Morass to relinquish certain lands, and to enter the same quantity elsewhere. On motion, the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, January 6, 1852.

The House met at twelve o'clock, m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. Mr. MORGAN. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. VIRGINIA MILITARY LAND WARRANTS. Mr. MILLSON, by unanimous consent, and in pursuance of previous notice, introduced a bill making further provision for the satisfaction of Virginia military land warrants; which was read a first and second time by its title, and referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

RECEPTION OF LOUIS KOSSUTH.

Mr. CARTTER, from the select committee appointed to wait upon Louis Kossuth and introduce him to the House of Representatives, submitted the following report; which was read, and ordered to lie upon the table:

The committee appointed for that purpose beg leave to report, that they will be prepared to introduce Louis Kossuth to the House of Representatives on Wednesday at one o'clock, p. m.; and would recommend ceremonies similar to the action of the Senate in the same case.

Mr. HALL asked leave to make sundry reports from the Committee on Public Lands.

Mr. HOUSTON objected, and called for the regular order of business.

The SPEAKER stated that the regular order of and thereupon proceeded to call the committees business was the call of committees for reports,

for reports.

APPROPRIATION BILLS.

Mr. HOUSTON, from the Committee of Ways and Means, reported the following bills; which were severally read a first and second time by their titles, referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and ordered to be printed, viz:

A bill making appropriations for the current and contingent expenses of the Indian Department, and for fulfilling treaty stipulations with various Indian tribes for the year ending June 30th, 1853;

A bill making appropriations for the payment of invalid and other pensions for the year 1853;

A bill making appropriations for the payment of Navy pensions for the year ending 30th June, 1853; and

A bill for carrying into execution, in further part, the twelfth article of the treaty with Mexico of the 2d of February, 1848.

On motion by Mr. HOUSTON, it was

Ordered, That the Committee of Ways and Means be discharged from the further consideration of the petition of John B. Rogers, and that it be referred to the Committee of Claims.

On motion by Mr. HOUSTON, it was

Ordered, That the Committee of Ways and Means be discharged from the further consideration of the petition of Vincent Walker and others, watchmen of the Gosport navy-yard, asking for an increase of pay; and the petition of H. W. King, clerk of the naval constructor of the Gosport navy-yard, asking increase of pay; and that they be referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

PUBLIC PRINTING.

Mr. HOUSTON. I am instructed by the Committee of Ways and Means to report to the House some papers which have been referred to that committee by the Secretary of the Treasury, that the House may take the order that it considers necessary upon the subject. There is a letter from the public printer, Mr. Hamilton, and also one from the acting Secretary of the Treasury, calling upon the Committee of Ways and Means to pay for printing the annual estimates of the Secretary of the Treasury, which were laid upon

in the town of Gnadenhutten, in the State of Ohio;" which, having been read a first and second time by its title, he moved that it be put on its passage.

Mr. H. said: I only wish to say in reference to this bill, that by an act of Congress in 1824, a lot of ground, about one acre in extent, was granted to this town for the purpose of a market square. The inhabitants of the town have now become so few in number that they no longer need the ground for a market square, and they ask that they may be permitted to use it for other purposes. The United States have no use for the ground at all.

The bill was then ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and, having been engrossed, was read the third time and passed.

Mr. McMULLIN. I accept of the modification of the gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. COBB.]

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. If this bill be committed to either committee, it certainly should go to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. It is a general bill-one not in the nature of a private claim, but proposes to dispose of a large portion of the public domain of the country; and it is one which will suggest itself to every member of the House as proper to go the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. I submit that motion.

Mr. McMULLIN. I have no authority to act for the committee, but so far as I am individually concerned as a member of the committee, and of this House, I would accept the proposition of the

Mr. MOORE, of Pennsylvania, from the Com-gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. JONES.] mittee on Public Lands, made an adverse report on the petition of William Fisher and Solomon Wood; which was ordered to lie on the table and be printed.

Mr. HENN, from the Committee on Public Lands, to which was referred House bill No. 27, to relinquish to the State of Iowa the lands reserved for salt springs therein, reported back the same to the House without amendment and with a recommendation that it do pass; which was referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. RANTOUL, from the Committee of Claims, reported a bill for the relief of the Orange and Alexandria Railroad Company; which was read a first and second time by its title, referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. BROWN, of Mississippi. Before the question is taken upon the motion to print, I desire to give notice of my intention to introduce an amendment, which I ask to have included in the motion to print, that it may be printed along with the bill.

The question was then taken, and the bill was referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and ordered to be printed, together with the amendment offered by Mr. BROWN.

Mr. BISSELL, from the Committee on Military Affairs, made an adverse report upon the memorial of James Rogers, asking compensation for the loss of a horse by his son, who was killed in Mexico; which was ordered to lie upon the table and be printed.

Mr. B. also, from the same committee, reported a bill for the relief of Edward Everett, late surgeon the United States Army; which was read a first and second time by its title, referred to the Committee of the Whole House, made the order of the day for to-morrow, and ordered to be printed

Mr. McMULLIN, from the Committee on Ag-in riculture, reported back with an amendment the bill to encourage agriculture, commerce, manufactures, and all other branches of industry, by granting to every man who is the head of a family and a citizen of the United States, a homestead of one hundred and sixty acres of land out of the public domain, upon condition of occupancy and cultivation of the same for the period herein specified; which was read a first and second time by its title. Mr. McM. I am instructed by the Committee on Agriculture to move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, printed, and made a special order of the day for the first Tuesday of February

next.

Mr. COBB. I suggest to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. McMULLIN] an amendment, that it be considered from day to day until disposed of.

Mr. McMULLIN. That is part of the instructions under which I act.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. I rise to a point of onder. The bill cannot be made the special order without unanimous consent.

The SPEAKER. It requires a suspension of the rules. It cannot be made a special order unless by unanimous consent.

Mr. McMULLIN. I am not at liberty to depart from the instructions of the committee; but if it be the pleasure of the committee and of the House, I will move that the bill be printed and referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and made a special order of the day for the first Tuesday of February next, and so continue from day to day until disposed of.

The SPEAKER. The Chair has stated that the motion to make this bill a special order cannot be entertained, it being objected to on the left of the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. I understand that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. STEPHENS] withdraws his objection, and it can be made a special order of the day by unanimous consent.

Mr. COBB. I suggest to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. JOHNSON] that it should go to a Committee of the Whole House, and not to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. If it goes there we shall never hear of it again.

Mr. JOHNSON. I am in hopes the objection will be withdrawn. There will be ample time, and the bill can come up and be considered in its proper place.

Several MEMBERS. "I object."

Mr. COBB. I desire that the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. McMULLIN] will consider whether the bill should not go to a Committee of the Whole. I have never known a bill considered in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union in my life.

Mr. WILCOX, from the Committee on Military Affairs, reported a bill entitled "An act for the relief of David C. Cash and Giles U. Ellis; which was read a first and second time by its title, referred to a Committee of the Whole House, made the order of the day for to-morrow, and ordered to be printed.

On motion by Mr. FLORENCE, it was

Ordered, That the Committee on Naval Affairs be discharged from the further consideration of the petition of Benjamin Holbrook, asking for a revision of the decision of the Board of Commissioners on Mexican Claims, and that the same be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On motion by Mr. BURROWS, it was Ordered, That the Committee on Naval Affairs, to which was referred the petition of Ira Baldwin, praying for the payment of a balance due him on a contract with the Navy Department, be discharged from the further consideration of the same, and that it be referred to the Committee of

Claims.

On motion by Mr. MILLSON, it was

Ordered, That the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions, to which was referred the petition of Jesse French, of Braintree, asking for a pension; and the petition of Cornelius Ziely, asking for a back pension, be discharged from the further consideration of the same; and that they be severally referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Ohio, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported a bill for the relief of John W. Robinson; which was read a first and second time by its title, referred to a committee of the Whole House, made the order of the day for to-morrow, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. HARRIS, of Tennessee, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported bills for the relief of Gardner Herring and Silas Chapman; which were severally read a first and second time by their titles, referred to a committee of the Whole House, made the order of the day for tomorrow, and ordered to be printed.

On motion by Mr. HARRIS, of Tennessee, it

was

Ordered, That the Committee on Invalid Pensions, to which were referred the petition of John Gallagher, for an invalid pension; the petition of Alexander Estep, praying for a pension from the time he was disabled in the war of 1812, to the time he was placed on the pension list; and the petition of R. L. Gaines, praying for arrears of pension, be discharged from their further consideration, and that they be severally ordered to lie on the table to be printed.

Mr. H. also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill concerning invalid pensions, reported the same back to the House, with a recommendation that it do not pass.

He moved that it lie upon the table; which motion was agreed to.

Mr. ST. MARTIN, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported a bill for the relief of

Philip Miller; which was read a first and second time by its title, referred to a committee of the Whole House, made the order of the day for tomorrow, and ordered to be printed.

Also, from the same committee, made adverse reports upon the petitions of John Concklin and Richard L. Jones, for increase of pensions; which were severally ordered to lie upon the table, and be printed.

Mr. KUHNS, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, made an adverse report in the following cases; which were ordered to lie on the table and be printed, viz:

On the petition of Edward Quin for a pension; On the petition of Mary Wright, of Conneaut, Ohio, for a pension; and

On the petition of William Batchelder for a pension.

Mr. K. also, from the same committee, reported two several bills for the relief of Albro Tripp and Joseph Johnson; which were read a first and second time by their titles, referred to Committees of the Whole House, made the order of the day for to-morrow and ordered to be printed.

Mr. EASTMAN, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported two several bills for the relief of Robert Milligin and Sylvanus Blodget; which were read a first and second time by their titles, referred to Committees of the Whole House, made the order of the day for to-morrow, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. E. also, from the same committee, made adverse reports in the cases of Benjamin Holland, Hugh Wallace Wormly, and Mary Prettiman, praying for pensions; which were severally ordered to lie on the table and be printed.

Mr. MOLONY, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, made two several adverse reports in the cases of Sarah Smith for a pension on the ground of the services of her husband, Elba Smith; and on the bill for the correction of an error in the pension of Orris Crosby; which were ordered to lie on the table and be printed.

Mr. M. also, from the same committee, reported two several bills for the relief of Amos Knapp and Artemas Conant; which were read a first and second time by their titles, referred to Committees of the Whole House, made the order of the day for to-morrow, and ordered to be printed.

On motion by Mr. M., it was

Ordered, That leave be granted to withdraw the papers of James W. Low from the files of the House, for the purpose of reference in the Senate.

Mr. STUART, by unanimous consent, introduced the following resolution; which was read, considered, and adopted:

Resolved, That the Committee of Claims be instructed to inquire into the expediency of erecting spindles and placing buoys upon the "Muscle Ridges," on the coast of Maine; and that the said committee be authorized to take from the files of the House any papers showing the necessity of erecting spindles and placing buoys upon said Muscle Ridges.

Mr. BERNHISEL. I rise and protest against the publication by the returning officers of the United States for the Territory of Utah, on their return, in Missouri papers, and now in the New York Herald, and before it is communicated to Congress, of a report, extraordinary in its details, of high crimes and misdemeanors, and calculated, if not intended, to prejudice and render odious a distant and dependent people, and to involve them in inexplicable difficulties with the General Government. I ask for them a suspension of public opinion of executive and legislative action-until the truth can be elicited touching the grave charges contained in an ex parte report.

Mr. CARTTER. I wish to inquire of the Delegate from Utah whether he himself did not procure that publication, and cause it to be sent to the New York Herald; and whether it is not a garbled report of the Utah affairs?

Mr. BERNHISEL. I reply that I did not furnish, or cause it to be furnished.

Mr. CARTTER. My information is, that the gentleman from Utah is the only person who has had access to the documents in the Department, and that there is reason to suppose that he caused the communication in the New York Herald (which is a garbling of the report) to be sent to that paper. If that is the case I should like to see an investigation had.

Mr. BELL. I ask leave to introduce a bill, of which previous notice has been given..