Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

that I make is the legitimate and proper one, and I hope that it will be adopted by the House.

Mr. RICHARDSON.* As this matter is going to lead to debate, I move the previous question. The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered.

The SPEAKER stated that the question would first be taken upon the motion to refer the bill to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. COBB asked for the reading of the bill.
Several MEMBERS objected.

The question was then taken, and there wereayes 62, noes 48-no quorum voting.

Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky, demanded tellers; which were ordered, and Messrs. PENN and WALLACE appointed.

The question being again taken, it was decided in the negative-ayes 39, noes 19.

So the House refused to refer the bill to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

The question recurring on the motion to refer the bill to the Committee of the Whole House, it was taken and agreed to.

So the bill was referred to the Committee of the Whole House, made the order of the day for tomorrow, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. McLANAHAN, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported back, with an amendment, the bill "to change the time for holding the district courts of the United States in the western district of Virginia, and for other purposes;" which was referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. MEADE, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to, viz:

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary inquire into the expediency of providing by law for a revision and compilation of the laws of the United States of a general nature, and for imbodying in a separate volume the laws relating to the District of Columbia.

Mr. HARRIS, of Tennessee, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported back House bill No. 16, "to regulate the publication of the laws of the United States, and of the public advertisements," with a recommendation that it do not pass.

Mr. STUART. That bill was introduced by a gentleman from Maine, who is confined to his room by indisposition. I hope that no action will be taken on it until he is able to be in his seat. There being no objection, the bill was laid upon the Speaker's table.

Mr. HARRIS, of Tennessee, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported back House bill No. 17, to prohibit the prosecution of claims against the Government by the Heads of Departments, and Senators and Representatives in Congress during the terms of their respective offices, with an amendment as a substitute for the bill.

Mr. H. moved that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the

Union, and that the bill and amendment be printed; which motion was agreed to.

Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky, from the Committee on the Judiciary, made an adverse report on the petition of Mrs. Susan T. Randall, widow of the late district judge of Pennsylvania, asking for remuneration for certain services of her husband, which was ordered to lie on the table and be printed.

Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill to amend an act entitled "An act for the punishment of crime in the District of Columbia," reported back the same with an amendment and a recommendation that it do pass.

The bill was read.

to render the willful and malicious burning of an outhouse in which there are no goods, subject to the same penalty as the law attaches to the burning of an outhouse with goods in it. I suppose there is no objection to the bill, and I move, therefore, that it be put upon its passage.

Mr. SACKETT. Would it not be better to insert, after the word "outhouse," the words or building?" The phraseology, as it now stands, would not include carpenters' shops.

66

Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky. I should suppose "building" would be embraced in the term "house or outhouse?"

Mr. SACKETT. I doubt very much whether that embraces every kind of outhouse. I move to insert after the word "outhouse," the words "or building."

Mr. MARSHALL. I suppose "house or outhouse" would cover every sort of building.

The SPEAKER. The Committee on the Judiciary propose to insert the words "or outhouse" after the word "house."

Mr. McLANAHAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. SACKETT] wishes to introduce into this bill a term so indefinite in its meaning, and so comprehensive in its application that it can scarcely find a place in any law or even civil act. The term "building" relates to so many kinds of buildings, and is so perfectly indefinite in its character, that a man might be indicted by it for burning anything in the shape of a building-anything that has been constructed, from a hen-coop up. The words "house," and "outhouse," are those which have a legal signification, long known in the common as well as the statute laws, as interpreted by the decisions of the judges of various States. But, as I have said, the term "building" is so perfectly indefinite in its meaning and so comprehensive in its character that it would be impossible not to indict a man for the burning of any building, however petty in its character. I hope, therefore, the House will not allow the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. SACKETT] to be adopted.

Mr. SACKETT. I have no desire to alter the

bill so as to extend it in any way beyond the intention of the committee who reported it. I was aware of the defect in the existing laws of the District of Columbia, in relation to the burning of certain unoccupied buildings, and that it was necessary to amend those laws by extending them so as to cover this class of buildings that are not now embraced within it. But the bill as reported to this House, in my opinion, will not entirely rebuildings as unoccupied mechanics' shops. move the difficulty. I think it does not cover such

Mr. McLANAHAN. I would ask the gentleman if a mechanic's shop is not embraced in the word "house?" His shop is a house, and if a man were found guilty of setting it on fire he would be convicted.

Mr. SACKETT. I do not know what the

gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McLANAHAN] may think, or what construction his legal learning may put upon the word "house," but I doubt shop is comprehended in that term. very much whether an unoccupied mechanic's

I do not believe it at all; and if it is intended to frame a bill here which shall cover that character of building at all, and sufficiently general in its terms to meet framed, it must contain terms such as shall cover the wants of the community for whom it is to be every class of building that it is necessary to pro

tect.

Now I deny that the term "house" is thus sufficiently comprehensive to embrace every class which should be protected. It does not embrace the class to which I have before alluded-that of unoccupied mechanics' shops-and I think such a building ought to be protected. I am not tenacious as to the particular word to be inserted. If the word "shop," or any other which any gentleman will name, which will be sufficiently comprehensive to cover every class of buildings that need protection is more acceptable, I am satisfied.

Mr. MARSHALL. The amendment proposed by the committee is simply to insert the words "or outhouse." I will state to the House that as the law of this District now stands, there is no I am not aware of the legal signification given penalty attached to the burning of an outhouse, to the term "house" which the gentleman from unless there is merchandise, grain, or hay in it, Pennsylvania [Mr. McLANAHAN] gives it. I am at the time it is consumed. For instance, if a not aware, especially, that in criminal jurisprupainter's shop is burned in the District of Colum-dence, laws are so construed as to embrace within bia, with whatever intention, the offence is not particular terms objects other than those which punishable under the existing law. are particularly included in those terms. I am not aware of any such construction in criminal law. Upon the other hand, particular terms, such as

The amendment of the law proposed by this bill, is merely intended to embrace that case, and

"house," are used to designate a particular class of buildings, and none other. If this is so, and if the committee intend to embrace the class of buildings to which I have referred, then some more comprehensive term should be used.

Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky. I do not wish to detain the House with useless discussion upon this subject. The Committee on the Judiciary think that every building that should be protected will be protected by the term "house or outhouse." The bill, as originally introduced by the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. EVANS,] was drafted by a lawyer of high standing in this city. The committee have enlarged the bill, and have made no other alteration than to enlarge it by the addition of the words "or outhouse;" and they supposed that the class of buildings referred to by the gentleman from New York [Mr. SACKETT] would certainly be embraced by the term "house or outhouse;" and I must say that I do not understand what sort of a building would not be embraced by that term. The law does not provide a penalty for burning a detached shop, if it is not connected with a house. The bill which the committee reported expressly provides a penalty for the burning of that class of buildings. The conclusion which the gentleman from New York expresses upon this subject, I do not think is one which the authorities will bear out. For the purpose of terminating this discussion, however, I call the previous question.

Mr. STUART. I hope the gentleman will withdraw that call for a moment.

Mr. MARSHALL. I cannot withdraw it.

Mr. WALSH. I hope the gentleman will withdraw his call for the previous question. We had better follow the laws of Maryland upon this subsect. I have just procured a copy of those laws from the Library

The SPEAKER. Debate is not in order."

Mr. THOMPSON, of Virginia. I move to lay the bill upon the table, in order that it may be taken up at some future time, when we may examine it more fully.

Mr. T. subsequently withdrew the motion. The question now being upon seconding the demand for the previous question,

Mr. GIDDINGS demanded tellers; which were ordered, and Messrs. WALSH, and THOMPSON of Virginia, were appointed.

The question was then taken, and the tellera reported-ayes 80-noes not counted.

So the previous question received a second. The main question was then ordered to be put, which main question was upon the adoption of the amendment to the amendment.

The question was then taken, and the amendment of Mr. SACKETT, to insert after the words "or outhouse" the words "or building," and it was disagreed to.

The question then recurred upon the adoption of the amendment reported by the committee, and, being taken, it was agreed to.

The question now being, "Shall the bill be engrossed and read a third time?"

Mr. MEADE moved to refer it to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

The SPEAKER said that, under the operation of the previous question-which extended to ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time a motion to refer would not be in order.

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

Mr. STUART asked if it would be in order to move to reconsider the vote just taken, by which the bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time?

The SPEAKER said it would be in order.

Mr. STUART. Then I submit that motion; and upon it I wish to offer a word or two. Before doing so, however, I ask that the bill as amended may be read.

The bill was then read.

Mr. STUART. I do not rise for the purpose of discussing the merits of this bill, nor the propriety of the amendment which has been introduced by the Committee on the Judiciary; for unless it be printed or placed in our hands, no profitable discussion in relation to it can be carried on without great difficulty. But, I rise for the purpose of answering the argument of members of that committee. My object in moving this reconsideration, is to have this bill referred to the Com

mittee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and to have it printed, that gentlemen may examine it and be able to reach this very difficulty which these amendments are designed to reach. Now, if the construction of this term " outhouse" is such as is ordinarily given it, certainly no gentleman will pretend that it reaches the difficulty presented in the original bill. The term "outhouse" is settled by authority. As I understand the term, "outhouse" reaches only to such buildings as are pertinent to the main building-which are in the curtilage. It is not an independent building. An independent building, occupied for a different purpose, does not, as I understand it, come within that class of buildings known as outhouses. Now our judicial construction upon acts of this kind,¦¦ are necessarily very close. The crime of arson is one of the very highest known to our laws, and the most rigid rule of construction is therefore always given to acts of this character. But "outhouse" or "house" being terms well known to criminal law,.have necessarily received a settled and definite construction; and they do not, I repeat, reach such independent buildings as a shop, office, store, or any building of that character. I am not by any means prepared to say that this bill does not reach any difficulty which it was intended to cover; but I am prepared to say, and from my knowledge of law I do say, though with deference to every other gentleman upon this floor, that the construction that is sought to be given here to the term "outhouse," will be found not to be sustained by judicial authority. But inasmuch as I am at all times very much averse to occupying the time of this House, and especially so at this time when other committees desire to report, I hope the House will agree to reconsider the order for engrossing this bill, and refer it to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and have it printed, so that we may all read and understand it, and that we may be enabled to do justice not only to this District, but to the whole community, by so perfecting the law that it will reach every offence within its contemplation.

Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky. My object, and, of course, the object of every member of the Committee on the Judiciary, is to cover by law, and by penal law, all classes of offences of which complaint has been made. It is of very little avail to carry on this discussion about the term "outhouse. My opinion is that every building detached from the main building, whether it is in the curtilage or not, is embraced by the term "outhouse." I have had my attention drawn particularly to the matter, but I have no pride of opinion about it. I understand that if we reconsider the vote by which this bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, that it will then be in a condition for amendment, and I suppose the insertion of the word "shop," would settle the matter, and probably cover every species of building which would not be covered by the term "house or outhouse."

Mr. THOMPSON, of Virginia. cover a printing office?

Would it

Mr. MARSHALL. I suppose so. I suppose the term 66 'house, outhouse, or shop would cover a printing office. I trust, however, that inasmuch as this discussion has arisen, that the House will take the matter under its own charge. I hope the reconsideration asked for will be given, and if offences go unpunished while the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union is reaching it, that the House will be ready to take the responsibility of it.

Mr. TUCK. I rise for the purpose of moving the previous question. But before doing so I wish to say that it seems to be admitted that some additional legislation is necessary for this District, in order to provide the means for bringing criminals to punishment. The proposition has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and they have given it their consideration. They have made a report, which was unanimously agreed in, and which was satisfactory to that committee. They propose in a certain manner, and by a certain method, to meet the exigency of the case; and they call for certain action by this House. Now, gentlemen rise here upon the spur of the moment and propose a different course. With all due respect to the gentlemen who have spoken upon this subject, I will not say that it does not comport with my notions of a proper respect to the Committee on the Judiciary, to give to this little

bill, so comparatively unimportant, a direction different from that which they have unanimously agreed to recommend. But for myself, I will say that I haye no sort of difficulty in supporting by my vote the proposed action of the Committee on the Judiciary. I shall vote against the motion to reconsider. I now move to lay the motion to reconsider upon the table.

Mr. PARKER, of Pennsylvania. I hope the gentleman will withdraw that motion.

Mr. TUCK. I would be glad to accommodate the gentleman, but I cannot withdraw it.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I appeal to the gentleman to withdraw.

Mr. PARKER. I am in favor of this new direction—

Mr. TUCK. The gentleman misunderstood me. I declined to withdraw the motion to lay on the table.

The SPEAKER. Then no further debate can be entertained.

The question was then taken, and the motion to reconsider was laid upon the table.

Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky, called for the previous question upon the passage of the bill; and, upon a division, there were-ayes 64, noes 36-no quorum voting,

Mr. M. demanded tellers; which were ordered, and Messrs. HARRIS, of Tennessee, and VENABLE were appointed.

The question was then taken, and the tellers reported-ayes 84, noes not counted.

So the previous question received a second, and the main question was ordered to be put; which main question was upon the passage of the bill.

The question was put and the bill was passed. Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky, moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed, and to lay the motion to reconsider upon the table; which latter motion was agreed to.

Mr. BRAGG, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported the following bills, which were severally read a first and second time by their titles, referred to a Committee of the Whole House, and made the order of the day for to-morrow; and, with the reports accompanying, ordered to be printed:

A bill for the relief of the executors and heirs of John Fletcher; and

The bill was then referred to a Committee of the Whole House, made the order of the day for tomorrow, and, with the report accompanying, ordered to be printed.

Mr. TUCK, from the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions, to whom was referred the petition of Peter Winifred Ashby, deceased, praying for arrears of pension, made an adverse report thereon; which was ordered to lie on the table, and be printed.

Mr. T. also, from the same committee, reported a bill for the relief of the heirs of John Jackson; which was read a first and second time by its title, and referred to a Committee of the Whole House, and made the order of the day for to-morrow, and, with the report accompanying, ordered to be printed.

Mr. BOCOCK, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, reported two several bills for the relief of Gustavus A. De Russy, and James McCormick, assignee of Robert A. Parker; which were severally read a first and second time by their titles, referred to a Committee of the Whole House, made the special order of the day for to-morrow, and, with the report accompanying, ordered to be printed.

Mr. HARRIS, of Tennessee, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, made adverse reports in the following cases; which were ordered to lie upon the table, viz:

In the case of the memorial of Daniel Guerrant, praying compensation for injuries received in the military service of the United States; and

In the case of the memorial of Tamza Smith, for relief for expenses incurred in supporting Amos F. Stillson, an officer and soldier in the Army of the United States.

Mr. MARTIN, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, made an adverse report on the petition of Charles H. Pointer, praying compensation as an invalid on account of disability by sickness while in the service of the United States; which was ordered to lie on the table and be printed.

Mr. M. also, from the same committee, reported a bill for the relief of Cornelius Hughes, of Tennessee; 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, with the report accompanying, or

A bill for the relief of James Lewis. Mr. GIDDINGS. I wish to ask if the morning dered to be printed. hour has not expired?

The SPEAKER. It has

[ocr errors]

Mr. GIDDINGS. I move, then, that we proceed to the orders of the day.

The question was then taken, and it was not agreed to.

The SPEAKER. still in order.

Reports of committees are

On motion by Mr. STANTON, of Tennessee, it was

Ordered, That the Committee on Naval Affairs be discharged from the further consideration of the petition of John G. Wilkinson, praying compensation for his services as Navy Pension Agent for the years 1836, 1837, and part of the year 1838; and also of the petition of Charles Reeder, praying compensation for services as a member of the Board of Examiners, to make experimental trials of inventions and plans to prevent the explosion of steam-boilers; and that they do lie upon the table.

Mr. S. remarked, that the two several petitions above referred to had been heretofore favorably reported upon by different committees to which they had been referred, but that the House had decided against them; and that the Committee on Naval Affairs were not disposed to revive the discussion of these matters, and therefore had instructed him to ask to be discharged from their further consideration.

Mr. S., from the same committee, also reported a bill for the relief of J. G. Pendergrast, a commander in the United States Navy; which was read a first and second time by its title, referred to a Committee of the Whole House, and made the order of the day for to-morrow, and, with the report accompanying, ordered to be printed.

Mr. GOODENOW, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, reported a bill for the relief of Hannah Sampson; which was read a first and second time by its title.

Mr. G. If the House will consent, I desire that the bill may now be put upon its passage. Mr. FICKLIN.. Let it be committed.

Mr. JONES, of New York, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, made adverse reports in the following cases; which were ordered to lie upon the table and be printed, viz:

The petition of Thomas Whinney, praying for compensation on occount of disability from exposure and fatigue in the military service of the United States during the war of 1812; and

Upon the petition of Elijah Close, praying Congress to grant him a pension for disability occasioned by exposure in the war of 1812.

Mr. J. also, from the same committee, reported the following bills; which were severally read a first and second time by their titles, referred to a Committee of the Whole House, and made the order of the day for to-morrow, and, with the reports accompanying, ordered to be printed, viz:

A bill for the relief of Francis Tribeau;
A bill for the relief of James Wright, jr.; and
A bill for the relief of John Kerbaugh.

Mr. EASTMAN, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported a bill for the relief of Ichabod Weymouth; which was read a first and second time by its title, referred to a Committee of the Whole House, and made the order of the day for to-morrow, and, with the report accompanying, ordered to be printed.

Mr. EASTMAN asked the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a bill, of which previous notice had been given; but objection being made, it was not introduced.

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

Mr. J. also, from the same committee, made adverse reports in the following cases; which were The SPEAKER. Objection is made, and it severally ordered to lie upon the table and be cannot be put upon its passage.

printed, viz:

The petition of Susan M. Sweeny, the widow of Thomas Sweeny, praying to be placed upon the pension rolls, in consequence of the death of her husband by disease contracted while in the military service during the Mexican war;

The petition of Ephraim Sharp, of Dryden, Tompkins county, New York, praying for a pension;

The petition of Jacob Shy, praying for a back pension on account of services in the war of 1812;

The petition of Samuel Butler, praying for a pension on account of disability incurred in the military service of the United States in the war of 1812; and also

The petition of Eliza Merrill, of Bangor, Maine, praying for arrears of pension due James Merrill. Mr. STANTON, of Kentucky. I am authorized by the Committee on Public Buildings to state, that there is a bill from the Senate now lying upon the Speaker's table, appropriating the sum of twelve hundred dollars for the purpose of fitting up two rooms to be occupied as a library, and for containing the books which shall be purchased with the money which was appropriated for that purpose by a bill passed yesterday. The Committee on Public Buildings are desirous that the bill should be passed immediately, and I am authorized by them to ask the unanimous consent of the House that it may be taken up and acted upon

now.

sage of said act, or shall hereafter die without having obtained a warrant for the same, leaving a widow, the warrant shall issue to such widow; if no widow, then such warrant shall issue to his minor heirs, if any shall survive him; and if the warrant shall have issued before his death, then such warrant shall pass to and be vested in his widow, if he shall leave one; and if no widow, then to his minor heirs, if any.

SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That the warrants which have been, or may herea.ter be issued, in pursuance of said act, or of this act, may be located upon any lands of the United States subject to private entry at the time of such location.

SEC. 7. And be it further enacted, That the proviso to the second section of the act of which this act is explanatory, be and the same is hereby repealed.

Mr. DUNHAM. Mr. Speaker, I have been directed to report the amendment that has just been read by the majority of the committee. The minority, however, will probably offer another amendment to the bill. The bill will stand, if amended as we propose, so as to make certificates assignable by an assignment upon the warrant in the same manner and under the same restrictions that deeds are required to be executed in the respective States where the warrants are assigned. The object of the committee in making this provision was this: they supposed with such a provision the officers and citizens of the different States would more readily understand what they had to do in making valid assignments of certificates than in any other way. Every public officer of a State understands, or can readily ascertain, what steps he has to take to execute a valid deed;

Mr. DUNHAM. I object. The SPEAKER. Objection being made the bill and, consequently, he can take the same steps for cannot now be taken up.

On motion by Mr. RICHARDSON, the Committee on Territories was discharged from the further consideration of the preamble and resolution of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Iowa, on the subject of compensation to the soldiers and others, while that State was a Territory, for defending the southern boundary of said Territory; and it was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

Mr. NEWTON. I ask the consent of the House to withdraw certain papers from the files of the the House, for the purpose of returning them to their owners.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. I object. Mr. DUNHAM. Are reports from select committees in order now?

The SPEAKER. They are.

Mr. DUNHAM. Then, sir, I propose to make a report from the select committee to which was referred the joint resolution explanatory of the act of September 28, 1850, entitled "An act granting bounty lands to certain officers and soldiers who were engaged in the military service of the United States," and the subject of amending and extending the bounty land bill. The report is to strike out the original bill that was referred to the committee, and to insert the following as a substitute therefor, viz:

SEC. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all certificates or warrants for military bounty lands which have been, or may hereafter be, issued under any law of the United States, and all certificates of valid locations of the same which have been or may bereafter be made, are hereby declared to be assignable by indorsement thereon, and such assignment shall be executed and acknowledged, or proved, in the same manner and with the same formalities that deeds for the conveyance of land are executed and acknowledged, or proved, in the State or Territory where such assignment shall be made.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That from and after the passage of this act, the registers and receivers of the United States land offices shall each be entitled to receive fifty cents for his services in locating each bounty land warrant by him located, to be paid by the person or persons locating the same; but this act shall not be so construed as to allow any register or receiver to receive any greater maximum of salary and fees than by law he is now entitled.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That the act of which this act is explanatory, shall be so construed as to include all commissioned and non-commissioned officers, musicians, and privates of militia, volunteers and rangers who were mustered into the service of the United States for the suppression or prevention of Indian hostilities, or whose services of that character were recognized and paid by the United States prior to the passage of said act, and who served the length of time required by said act.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That in computing the term of service of the officers and soldiers of militia, volunteers, and rangers, for the purposes of this act, or of

the act of which this act is explanatory, such term shall be computed from the time they were mustered into the service of and paid by the United States to the time they were discharged therefrom.

Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That if any officer or soldier entitled to bounty land under this act or under the act of which this act is explanatory, has died since the pas

the assignment of a land warrant. I apprehend there will be no difficulty in the Department's ascertaining what are the laws in the different States upon the subject. There can be no difficulty upon that score. They can easily inform themselves of the laws of the several States for the proper execution of a deed. No difficulty will arise in the application of these laws to the assignment of

warrants.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. TUCK. I submit whether it is in order to do that, unless there is a motion submitted that the bill be put upon its passage?

The SPEAKER. The question is upon the amendment proposed by the committee. There being no motion to commit the bill, that is the question before the House.

Mr. TUCK. Is it order to move to commit the bill to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union?

Mr. DUNHAM. Not until the gentleman gets the floor.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Indiana has the floor.

Mr. DUNHAM. The second section is in reference to the payment of registers and receivers for the location of bounty land warrants. The committee have striken out this section in the original bill, and propose to provide for the payment of these officers for locating land warrants hereafter. It may be possible that in some of the offices labor has been done for which their fees and salary have not been an adequate compensation; but it was impossible at this time for the committee to inquire into the receipts by registers and receivers throughout the United States to ascertain which had and which had not been sufficiently paid for the services they rendered. We considered it was better to leave those officers individually to prefer their claims to the Government. If their case is meritorious, undoubtedly the Congress of the United States will be disposed to grant relief. But in many of these offices they are not entitled to this privilege. They have in many instances received almost the maximum the law allows them to receive, without any payment whatever for the location of land warrants. In other places they have not received near that

amount.

It would be a long and tedious investigation to examine into every case to find out whether the officer has received an adequate compensation for his services or not. We did not consider it proper to load down a bill of a general character, as this is, with these individual claims for services rendered-for some of which there was no right of payment. They are left in the same situation as private clams. We provide for the future claims of officers for locating these

warrants, that the register and receiver for the location of a warrant receive each fifty cents. That is the fee which they are now entitled to for locating forty acres of land at one percent. upon the money received by each officer. They now receive, the register one per cent, and the receiver one per cent., which would make for the location of forty acres to each officer fifty cents. I submit to the House that there is no more trouble in the location of one hundred and sixty acres than there is in locating forty acres of land. We, therefore, ought not to pay any more in the one case than in the other. The committee could not conceive why there should be a distinction. The distinction is a reasonable one, if the officer has to take charge of the funds. He there incurs a responsibility, and that responsibility increases with the amount of money received. This cannot apply where lands are located by means of warrants. In this respect the committee have changed the original bill. They make the fee payable in all cases by the person who makes the location, whether he be the original grantee or not. The original bill provides, if the land is entered by the assignee, that the fee should be paid by him, and I apprehend no gentleman will doubt if the land warrant is to be sold and transferred, the transferee has to pay this additional price for locating the warrant. That enters into consideration when he buys the warrant. There can be no propriety in making a distinction in the payment of the fee, when it is located by the original grantee, or by his assignee. If it is located by the assignee, he should be made to pay the fee. I submit to every member of the House whether every business man will not take that into consideration when he buys the warrant from the original grantee, and whether there is any reason in principle or practice why there should be a distinction between the payment of the fee by the person to whom the warrant has been granted or his assignee.

The next section provides for that class of men who are called out for the suppression or prevention of Indian hostilities under the authority of the States, but whose services were recognized and paid for by the United States out of the public Treasury. We thought that this was no more than fair; no more than justice demanded. If for these services they have been paid out of the Treasury, the presumption is that they were valuable to the General Government. There is no reason why, the Government having considered these services of so much advantage as to require at their hands remuneration, they should not be put upon the same footing with persons legitimately called into the service of the United States. In this respect we have not departed to any extent from the original bill.

The fourth section provides that the time of service shall not be computed, as is now done, at the Department, but that in computing the term of service of the officers and soldiers, of militia, volunteers, and rangers, for the purposes of this act, or the act of which this act is explanatory, such term shall be computed from the time they were mustered into the service and paid by the United States to the time they were actually discharged therefrom. The object is to cover all that class of cases. I will give you an instance: In the Black Hawk war rangers were called out for twelve months service. The war closed after they had been in service only thirty days, some sixty and some ninety days; but those troops were kept in active service upon the Indian frontier for the purpose of intimidating the tribes and to keep them in order, for the whole term for which they were enlisted-twelve months. Yet the Department, because the Black Hawk war ceased within thirty, sixty, or ninety days after their enlistment, say they shal only receive a warrant for the time they served in the war.

The fifth section provides for those cases where application is upon file in the Department, and where no warrant has issued, that if any person entitled to bounty land under this act, or under the act of which this act is explanatory, has died, or hereafter shall die, the warrant shall issue to the widow in the first instance upon her application; if no widow, then to the minor heirs, in the same manner as if he had died after obtaining the warrant. It also

Mr. FICKLIN. With the consent of my friend from Indiana, I wish to make an inquiry. The chairman of the select committee to whom

this bill was referred, understands that this fifth section changes the mode of descent and transfers this warrant to the widow, and if there is no widow to the minor heirs. The widow possesses it entirely, and no benefit accrues at all to the minor heirs unless there is no widow.

Mr. DUNHAM. In that respect we follow precisely the original act. In case the soldier died before his warrant has issued, we give the warrant when it does issue, in the same manner as if he had not made his application, to his widow; and if there is no widow, to his minor heirs. If he has made application which has been acted upon, and a warrant issued but not located, and shall thereafter die, the bill provides that the warrant shall first descend to his widow, and then to his minor heirs. If the intention was originally, as the act indicates, to give it first to the soldier, and in case of his death, to his widow, or if there is no widow, to his minor heirs, is there any reason why we should make a distinction between the soldiers who die after the application and before the warrant has issued, and those who die after the warrant has been issued? We all know very well in the Western country, that when you come to divide a land warrant amongst a half-a-dozen heirs in that way, it amounts to nothing. The original intention was to provide for the widow, and then for the minor children, to help her to support and educate them until they arrived at maturity, and able to take care of themselves.

The sixth section of the act provides that the warrants which have been or may hereafter be issued under these acts, may be located upon any lands of the United States subject to private entry. In other words, this section repeals a proviso which we recollect was forced upon Congress with our eyes open, requiring these warrants to be located upon lands then in market. I allude to the proviso which was moved to the civil and diplomatic appropriation bill, by a gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. VINTON,] not now a member of this House.

Mr. LOCKHART. I wish to ask the gentleman whether this sixth section does not violate one of the general land laws-whether it does not permit these warrants to be located upon alternate sections reserved at a double price where lands have been granted to railways and other public improvements? Mr. DUNHAM. I take it the fair construction of this law would not interfere with that class of lands. They are not embraced in the term "to be subject to private entry." I apprehend when we speak of lands open to private entry, the fair interpretation would be, lands open to private entry minimum price. That was the intention of ate committee; and if gentlemen think the bill is not sufficiently guarded in that respect, they can amend it.

The seventh section repeals the proviso to the original bill, which prevents members of Congress, who are entitled to bounty land under the late law, and under the Mexican bounty land law, from receiving it. I have given this brief explanation, that the House may be aware of the reasons that led to the adoption of this bill.

me

Mr. MEADE. If the gentleman will allow

Mr. DUNHAM yielded.

Mr. MEADE. To bills of this character, when before the House, it is very inconvenient, if possible, to get amendments in deemed to be essential. I will suggest to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. | DUNHAM] Some of the defects I consider attached to this bill. In the first place, he has altered the mode by which assignments shall be made and proved, by abrogating the forms recognized by the Department, and requiring these assignments to be authenticated in the same way deeds are authenticated in the State where the holder of the warrant lives. Now, I think it is very likely that in many of the States of this Union, as in my own, it would prevent the sale of the warrants, or at least incumber them with so many difficulties, that the object of this amendment, explanatory to the act passed by Congress, would be entirely defeated. We all know that the mode by which warrants are now assignable is by assignment in blank, and they are certified in the usual way by a notary or magistrate, with the certificate and seal of the clerk of the county in which the party resides. They are passed off into the hand of some attorney, or member of Congress, to sell for the claimant, and when he sells he inserts the name of the assignee. Such an assignment as

that in my State, under this provision, would not be a good one, because if the assignment was to be certified and proved in the manner deeds are in my State, it would be necessary for the certified officer there-a justice of the peace, to recite the deed, and in this case to recite the assignment. Now the object for which this law was passed would, in the case of my people, be entirely defeated, or to a great extent. This is one objection to the proposed mode of certifying assignments. I think the mode is now understood through the country; and as they usually attach the form to every warrant issued, it is a better mode of assigning than that proposed by this bill. Another objection that suggests itself to me is, that it does not provide for cases that may happen. Mr. BISSELL. I should like to know which of the gentlemen has the floor. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. DUNHAM] is entitled to the floor.

Mr. MEADE. I am only suggesting the amendments the gentleman may make to save the time of the House. I have to notice but one other defect I perceive in this bill. It is this: it provides, that if the warrant shall have issued before the death of the warrantee, then such warrant shall pass to, and be invested, in his widow, if he shall leave one; if no widow, then to his minor heirs. Now suppose a man dies after obtaining his warrant, and leaves no widow and no minor heir, it would seem this bill intends to deprive his general heirs of the warrant in that case.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. That is the intention of the bill.

Mr. DUNHAM. In reference to the first inquiry by the gentleman, I will frankly state I did not, as an individual, sanction that section as it now stands; but I believe, excepting myself, the committee were unanimous for that provision. Experience has shown-at least so the officers of the Department tell me that the mode of assigning warrants which has been practised in reference to the Mexican bounty land warrants, has resulted in very great fraud. If this matter had been left to the Department, they would have undoubtedly imposed such restrictions as would have prevented fraud. We ought now to provide a mode that will prevent fraud in assignments of warrants. If you permit assignments in blank you open the door to a great many abuses in the assignment of these bounty land warrants. For instance, a warrant has been issued to myself; I assign it in blank to A B, and make the acknowledgment that he has the warrant in his possession, with this blank assignment. He loses it, or it is stolen from him, or in any other way may get out of his hand. C, who may get hold of it, may fill up the blank assignment and may make the focation, and you have no remedy. If the bill oppose obstruction to that kind of assignment, I think it will have accomplished a good end. If it is stolen, the thief might indorse his name upon it at once, and the mere indorsement transfers it from hand to hand. If the blanks were left open to be filled, all these guards we have studied to throw around them, and which the Department has endeavored to throw around them, would be good for nothing. I think experience will show the gentleman is mistaken in another thing. I understand the construction which the Department has given to the law as it now stands is, that if a soldier dies before he locates his land warrant, it does not pass to his heirs, but the warrant has to be surrendered up. If he leaves a widow, however, it goes to her; and if no widow, to his minor children. If he has no widow, he then has no right under the law. That is the construction put upon it, and the committee did not feel authorized from the action of this House, to change that construction by positive enactment. That is the answer I have to make. Now, in reference to the sixth section, I hope that by unanimous consent the amendment may be made limiting the locations upon land which may be in market at the time of the location, at the minimum price. If there is no objection, I submit an amendment, to come in at the end of this section in these words: "At the minimum price."

Mr. MEADE. I hardly suppose the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. STEPHENS] understands me. The warrant has been issued; it is in the possession of the claimant; he keeps it for twelve months, or five years, and dies without having assigned it, leaving no widow or infant children-is it intended by this bill that this warrant shall go back to the Government, thus cutting off the general heirs? In that case, by inference, this bill would seem to involve such a result, for it says, if the warrant shall have issued before his death, then such warrant shall pass to, and be invested, in his widow; if no widow, then to his minor heirs. In a majority of cases, they have no widow and minor heirs. Many of these soldiers are so old that all of their children have grown up. In such a case as that, warrants would be dead property, and pass to nobody; but it would appear such a warrant was in existence, and so much land had passed out of th hands of the Government. It would involve great abuses. Mr. STANTON, of Tennessee. I hope the honorable chairman of this select committee what

[blocks in formation]

Mr. MEADE. I will reply to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. STANTON] by saying that it is my opinion that it is not competent for this bill to change rights already vested, and therefore it could not apply to warrants heretofore issued. I will state another thing to the House. I have received letters from the Department, in which they have given this construction to the law of 1850: if a man makes application in his lifetime for his warrant, and dies before that warrant issues, that it cannot issue unless he has a widow and infant children. And in one case particularly in my district, a widow made application for the land to which her deceased husband would have been entitled, but before the warrant issued in her case, she also died, and the Department decided she was not entitled to it, nor her heirs. Now it seems to me, by the words of that bill, if a man be living at the time of the date of that bill, and died previous to his obtaining his warrant from the office, that it is a vested right, descendable to his heirs generally, and they cannot be divested of it by any construction given to that law by the Department. I think, if the House agree with me that if a man be living at the date of the last bill, and entitled to his warrant, he has a vested and indefeasible right to it, that such a declaration ought to be contained in this bill; for I consider the construction given to the act by the officers is entirely unwarrantable.

I would to inquire of

motion he intends to make in reference to this bill?

Mr. DUNHAM. I intend to move its reference to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. I will state, that my object in doing that is, because it will be impossible to dispose of the bill to-day, and unless such a motion is made the bill will go upon the Speaker's table, and, consequently, will not come up to-morrow. I make that motion with the expectation of withdrawing it at the proper time.

Mr. BISSELL. I understand now, and I am glad to hear it, that the honorable chairman of this select committee designs to have this bill referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. DUNHAM. I supposed the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. BISSELL] at the time merely rose to make an inquiry. I intended to submit

that motion.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Arkansas. I rise to a privileged question, that will entitle me to the floor, so far as that question is concerned. It is to move to take up the business on the Speaker's table. This bill will stand as the first business in order in the morning.

The SPEAKER. The morning hour having expired, the gentleman from Arkansas, [Mr. JOHNSON] has a right to arrest proceedings for the purpose of submitting the motion he has made.

Mr. JOHNSON. I will ask if this bill does not come up the first business in the morning, if we proceed with the business upon the Speaker's

table?

The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks it will. Mr. JOHNSON. I will make the motion to refer it to the Committee of the Whole; and that will bring it up as the first business in order.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman cannot have the floor to submit that motion.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I wish to inquire if the House now pass to the business upon the Speaker's table-a motion having been made to refer this bill to the Committee of the Whole upon the state of the Union-if this bill will not go to the Speaker's table and come up as the unfinished business?

The SPEAKER. That is the course the bill will take.

Mr. DUNHAM. Then I move to refer this bill to the Committee of the Whole upon the state of the Union.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Arkansas. I call for the business upon the Speaker's table.

BRITISH WEST INDIA COLONIES.

The SPEAKER then laid before the House a communication from the President of the United States; which was read as follows, viz:

WASHINGTON, January 12, 1852. To the House of Representatives:

In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 5th instant, I herewith transmit to it a report and accompanying papers from the Secretary of State.

MILLARD FILLMORE. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, January 10, 1852.

To the President of the United States:
The Secretary of State, to whom has been referred the
resolution which was adopted by the House of Represent-
atives of the United States on the 5th instant, requesting
the President to communicate to that House, if not incom-
patible with the public interest, any information he may
possess, respecting a circular which was issued by the Sec-
retary of State for the British Colonial Department, on the
16th of October, 1850, relative to the employment in her
Britannic Majesty's West India Colonies, of free blacks and
liberated slaves from the United States, and particularly
what action the Legislative Assemblies of the British West
India Islands have taken in pursuance of the suggestions
contained" in said circular, has the honor to report to the
President the accompanying copy of papers, which embrace
all the information possessed by this Department on the
subject of the said resolution. Respectfully submitted.
DAN'L WEBSTER.

Mr. Lawrence to Mr. Webster.
LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
LONDON, November 14, 1851.

SIR: A few weeks since George W. Owens, Esq., of Georgia, called upon me to say that he had seen a newspaper, published in the Island of Antigua, containing a circular dispatch from the Colonial Office, recommending the British West India Colonies to enter into contracts with persons held in slavery in the United States. Soon after the interview he furnished me with a copy of the dispatch.

Mr. Owens seemed greatly annoyed at Lord Grey's dispatch, although I told him that this Government could not bave the intention of meddling with slavery in the United States. He, however, was anxious for an explanation from the Government. I did not feel authorized, nor did I think it wise to make an official matter of the subject, as I believed I could accomplish the object in a more satisfactory manner by a personal interview. I accordingly called on Lord Palmerston, in the absence of Lord Grey, and received from him a verbal explanation, disclaiming any such purpose as Mr. Owens had drawn from the language of the dispatch. On Lord Grey's return to town, I received from him an informal note to the same effect. I immediately wrote Mr. Owens a note, imbodying the substance of these explanations, and received from him a reply, dated at Liverpool, expressing dissatisfaction with them. Not knowing what use he may make in the United States of the circular dispatch, I deem it my duty to place you in possession of a copy of my letter to him. I have read this letter to Lord Palmerston, and have received from him an assurance that it is entirely in accordance with his own views, with the views of Lord Grey, and with those of the Cabinet Ministers.

The dispatch in question was, as you will see, sent to the West Indies some time in the autumn of 1850, and as it has never been heard of in the United States, I apprehend it was never acted upon by the Colonial Legislatures. It grew out of the action of the late Mr. Turnbull, who was, I believe, of the mixed Commission in Cuba, and an agent of this Government in matters connected with the slave trade. He was in Washington about two years since, and while there saw many persons of Maryland, Virginia, and other Southern States, respecting the free colored people of those States, and communicated the result of his observations to this Government.

I should not have thought it necessary to trouble you with this matter, if Mr. Owen had expressed himself satisfied with my letter.

I have the honor to be, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, ABBOTT LAWRENCE.

Hon. DANIEL WEBSTER, Secretary of State, Washing

ton.

}

Extract from the Antigua Weekly Register, published in the city of St. John's, 26th November, 1850. HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY, THURSDAY, November 21, 1850. When the House was formed, which was not before two o'clock, Mr. Speaker informed the House that he had received a message from the Governor-in-Chief, which he read, as follows:

"R. J. MCINTOSH, the Governor-in-Chief, transmits, for the information of the House of Assembly, the accompanyng copy of a circular dispatch which he has received from

her Majesty's Secretary of State, suggesting measures to be adopted for the encouragement of emigration to the West Indies from the United States.

"GOVERNMENT HOUSE, ANTIGUA, November 18, 1850. [CIRCULAR.]

"DOWNING STREET, October 16, 1850. "SIR: I have to acquaint you that it has been suggested to me that a desirable class of emigrants for the West Indiant Colonies might be induced to come to them from among the black and colored population of the United States, whose arrival and location, if they choose to come, would, I have no doubt, be advantageous both to theinselves and the colonies.

"I am not aware of anything which can be done by the Colonial Governments to encourage such immigration beyond showing a readiness to pass acts giving the privilege of naturalization to any such persons as might come and settle there, and providing that a bounty should be payable on such immigrants, under such arrangements as may be thought desirable.

"I could also suggest, as deserving of consideration, whether laws might not be passed rendering binding, on certain conditions, engagements to pay sums of money which may have been agreed on by immigrants, although such engagements may have been contracted in America and while the parties were in a state of slavery. "I have, &c.,

GREY."

Mr. Lawrence to Mr. Owens. LONDON, November 8, 1851. MY DEAR SIR: I have just received a reply to my note to Lord Palmerston, accompanied by Lord Grey's explanation of the dispatch to which I called his attention. I am assured that he never intended to sanction or suggest entering into any arrangement with regard to slaves not first, known to and approved by the masters; and that so far from supposing that any American would or could complain of the proposed arrangement, it was believed the slaveholders would receive it with satisfaction, and join in carrying it into effect.

It appears that Lord Grey has been aware for some time that the West India Colonies are suffering for the want of an adequate supply of labor. A gentleman from these colonies directed his attention to the fact that there were in some of the slaveholding States a large number of free blacks whom the whites would be glad to have removed, and who would meet to a certain extent the wants of the colonies. Knowing it to be the policy of the slave States to rid themselves of such a population, he thought a measure contemplating such a result would be favorably received by them.

He was further led to suppose, on the authority of certain American gentlemen, communicated to him through the same channel, that many slaveholders would avail themselves of such an opportunity to emancipate their slaves, if they could be assured of their being removed from the country.

He was informed that the laws forbade emancipation, unless the liberated slaves were also removed, and that the expense of this prevented persons who would otherwise emancipate their slaves from doing so. But it was said a measure would be acceptable which would enable such persons to remove their slaves from the country when liberated without expense to themselves.

With this view he prepared a plan, which should aim at the employment in the West India Colonies of free blacks from the United States; and should also offer to the planters the prospect, not only of a removal of their liberated slaves without expense, but of a recovery of a portion of their value also. He recommended this plan to the colonies, and wrote the circular in question in the belief that the want of labor would be supplied from these two sources, with the assent and coöperation of the slaveholders and the governments of the slaveholding States.

It is to be regretted that, with such an end in view, language should have been employed capable of a different construction; but this explanation appears to deprive it of its objectionable character.

With great consideration, I remain, dear sir, very faithfully yours, ABBOTT LAWRENCE.

On motion by Mr. BAYLY, the communication was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and ordered to be printed.

DEFICIENCY ESTIMATES.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the Treasury Department, transmitting a statement of additional appropriations required for the current fiscal year in the bureaus of said Department, amounting to $16,500. Also, for the contingent expenses of the branch Mint at New Orleans, $12,000; and for annuities and drafts $750; amounting in the aggregate to $29,250.

On motion by Mr. HOUSTON, referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, and ordered to be printed.

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a communication from the Treasury Department, transmitting statements from the War Department of additional appropriations necessary for the support of the Army for the present fiscal year; which,

On motion by Mr. HOUSTON, was referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, and ordered to be printed.

DEFICIENCY ESTIMATES-DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR.

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a communication from the Department of the Inte

rior, transmitting estimates of appropriations necessary to meet deficiencies in the service of this Department for the fiscal year ending 30th June, 1852, amounting to some $700,000.

On motion by Mr. HOUSTON, it was referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I would ask the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means if it would not be better to send that communication back to the Department of the Interior and ask them to submit their estimates according to the laws, and what has heretofore been the practice. It has always been the practice, and I believe the law requires it, that they shall submit their estimates to the Secretary of the Treasury, and he shall send them in here. Some days ago we had an estimate from the Navy Department, and now we have one from the Department of the Interior. I suppose in a short time the War Department will present one, too; and after a while the Secretary of the Treasury will also submit In my opinion, they should all be sent back, and made in accordance with the law and custom. I move, therefore, that this communication be returned to the Secretary of the Interior, and that he be directed to submit it according to law.

one.

Mr. STANLY. If the Secretary of the Interior has been guilty of any neglect or duy, he has not done so certainly with any intention. I hope my friend from Tennessee [Mr. JONES] will not resort to this mode of proceeding. After the committee have had this paper under examination, they can report such resolution and send it back; but to throw it back now in the face of the Seeretary, is certainly not becoming ourselves or him. I hope my friend from Tennessee will not insist upon his motion, for I think it is a little uncour

teous.

Mr. JONES. The manner in which they make their reports to Congress looks a little uncourteous, to say the least of it.

Mr. HOUSTON. I made no reply to my friend from Tennessee, because I took it for granted that the remarks he had made would bring the subject to the attention of the heads of the Department, so that they would hereafter pursue the ordinary course of communicating through the Secretary of the Treasury to Congress. I believe, with the gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. STANLY,] that it would be, probably, too severe a rebuke to send it back. The remarks of the gentleman from Tennessee have sufficiently presented the subject to the attention of the heads of the Departments; so much so, that they will hereafter follow the law and custom upon that subject. It is certainly irregular and unusual to make this sort of communication, but still I agree with the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. STANLY] that it would probably be too decided a step for us to take, at this time, to send it back.

Mr. JONES. It certainly would not be any stronger expression of the House towards that Department than this course is, upon the part of the Department, uncourteous towards the House. The law requires, if I mistake not, that the several Departments shall submit their estimates to the Congress of the United States through the Treasury Department. The Treasury Department is required by law to make its report directly to the Congress of the United States. Since I have been here it has been the uniform practice, I believe, when the Secretary of the Treasury submits his annual estimates of appropriations to accompany them also with such estimates for deficiencies for the current year as the several Departments may report to him. If gentlemen think that the course I suggested would be too severe a rebuke towards the Secretary, I will withdraw the motion I made, and move to lay the communication upon the table, and there let it rest until it comes to us in a proper manner.

The question was then taken on Mr. JONES'S motion, and it was agreed to.

So the communication was laid upon the table. Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I rise to a privileged question. I understand that there is a similar communication from the Navy Department, which has been referred to the Committee of Ways and Means. I move to reconsider the vote by which it was so referred, in order that it, too, may be laid upon the table until sent in in the regular manner.

Mr. HOUSTON. I think the gentleman from

« AnteriorContinuar »