Mr. ROBINSON, from the Committee on Roads and Canals, reported a bill to set apart and sell to Asa Whitney, of New York, a portion of the public lands to enable him to construct a railroad from Lake Michigan or the Mississippi river to the Pacific ocean; which was read a first and second time by its title.

Mr. R. moved to refer it to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and that it be printed.

[Cries of "Read the bill!"]

The bill was then read through by the Clerk. Mr. THURSTON. That is an important invention. The patent expired in 1850, and is of no benefit to the inventor at all. He can only use it himself. He has expended about $30,000 in perfecting the machine. I hope it will be the pleasure of the House to pass the bill.

Mr. SACKETT. I move to refer the bill to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the

Mr. DUNHAM moved to refer it to the Com-Union, and that it be printed. mittee on Public Lands.

Mr. HALL. I hope that this bill will not be referred to the Committee on 'Public Lands. It has been considered thoroughly by one of the committees of this House, which is certainly as competent to consider it as is the Committee on Public Lands, and the result of their labors is before the House. I can see no reason why it should be referred to the Committee on Public Lands. That committee has already as much business as it can attend to.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. Did not the bill come from the Committee on Roads and Canals?

Mr. ROBINSON. It did; and that committee have had it before them ever since it has been in Congress.

The question was first taken upon Mr. ROBINSON's motion, and the bill was referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. ROBINSON, from the same committee, reported back a bill for the improvement of Rock Island and De Moines Rapids in the Mississippi river, with an amendment; which was referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. R. also, from the same committee, reported the following bills; which were read severally 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 for the construction of military roads in the Territory of Oregon;

A bill for the improvement of the navigation of the Arkansas river;

A bill for the improvement of the navigation of the Ohio river, between Pittsburg and the falls at Louisville;

A bill for the improvement of the navigation of the Ohio river below the falls at Louisville, and of the Mississippi river; and

A bill for the improvement of the navigation of the Missouri river.

Mr. JOHN W. HOWE, from the Committee on Roads and Canals, reported back, without amendment, House bill No. 68, being a bill to provide for the survey of sites for certain artificial reservoirs to be constructed at the main affluence of the Ohio river, in accordance with the plans heretofore submitted by Charles Ellet, jr., and for other purposes; which was referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. STANTON, of Ohio, from the Committee on Roads and Canals, reported back, with an amendment, House bill to provide for the construction of a ship canal around the falls of the Ste. Marie river, at the mouth of Lake Superior; which was referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. STANTON, of Kentucky, from the Committee on Public Buildings, made an adverse report on the memorial of certain laborers on the public buildings, asking for an increase of wages; which was ordered to lie on the table and be printed.

Mr. S., from the same committee, reported a bill to authorize the Secretary of War to purchase of Mr. William H. Winder, the building now in the occupancy of the Government, situated on the corner of Seventeenth and F streets, in the city of Washington; which was read a first and second time by its title, and referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. THURSTON, from the Committee on Patents, reported a bill for the relief of Hiram Moore and John Hascal, for the renewal of a patent on a reaping and thrashing machine; which was read a first and second time by its title. Mr. T. moved to put the bill on its passage.

It has not been taken.

The SPEAKER. Mr. CARTTER. I do not wish to detain the House five minutes. The bill proposes to renew the patent rights of Hascall & Moore, in their harvesting machine-not a common thrasher, or separator, or a reaper, but a combination of the whole, and in conflict with none of them-a machine that has just been perfected under fourteen years of labor, and from which the inventors have never drawn a farthing. It is a machine that cannot come in conflict with any existing machine. It is one that augments' the agricultural facilities, for reaping, cleaning, and gathering grain. The inventors have been made poor in the process of perfecting their invention, which process has covered the entire period for which the patent was granted; and if it is to be of any service to them, the patent ought to be granted to them now, for they have not the ability to wait upon the legislation of this House, and resort to the ordinary appliances made use of for that purpose. This is a brief history of that matter. It is a machine that can only be perfected upon the prairies of the United States It is not adapted to the smaller farming operations of the East, or to the woody portions of the United States. I regard it as an act of naked justice to the genius, labor, and perseverance of those gentlemen, that the grant should be made, for they have never yet derived a dollar from it. There are but two perfect machines that have ever been built, and those machines have cost them fourteen years of trial and labor, and all the money they and their friends could procure, to the amount of $20,000 or $30,000. I hope the House will pass it as an act of justice.

Mr. SACKETT. I am entirely unacquainted with the character of this case. I only know it is an application for a renewal of a patent. But I suppose there has been no renewal under the general law, authorizing renewals by the Commissioner of Patents; but I know such a case is one, in my judgment, which should not be passed without the deliberation of this House. It is asking quite too much, for the Committee on Patents to come into this House and say that it is a case which comes in conflict with no other patent that is now in existence. Sir, that is covering quite too much ground. That is a question which may belong to a court, which may belong to the consideration of many other patentees, interested in this question.

Whether the case is one that ought to pass at all or not, is not now a proper subject of consideration. It is, to say the least, one of a class of cases which demand the attention of this House, and should not be acted upon precipitately. I therefore renew the motion to refer it to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. STUART. I feel confident, sir, that if the gentleman from New York [Mr. SACKETT] was aware of all the facts in regard to this bill, he would not press his motion to refer it to the Committee of the Whole House.

In addition to what has been said by the honorable chairman of the Committee on Patents, [Mr. CARTTER,] I will state, that a similar bill for the relief of these inventors passed this House at the last Congress, was referred to the Committee on Patents of the Senate, and by it reported back favorably, but was lost in the Senate for want of

time to reach it. This bill has now been unanimously reported to this House by the present committee, and they unanimously ask that it shall be put upon its passage, that it may not be again lost for want of time. As the honorable member who reported this bill [Mr. THURSTON] has said, this machine can be used only during the harvesting season, about one month in each year. So that the whole use of it under the original patent has been only fourteen months.

Most inventions can be used every day and can be tried and tested in secret, while every experiment with this one must be made openly and before the whole community.

I reside, Mr. Speaker, in the same county with these inventors, and their invention has been perfected under my own eye. They have expended the whole lifetime of the former patent and more than thirty thousand dollars in perfecting their machine, and have not derived one dollar of profit from their invention.

Mr. JOHN W. HOWE. I desire to ask if the patent has ever been renewed under the existing patent laws?

Mr. STUART. No, sir.

Mr. SACKETT. The gentleman does not understand the question. They have had a renewal by the Commissioner for seven years.

Mr. STUART. No, sir. The gentleman from New York is entirely mistaken. It has not been renewed at all.

Mr. DUNHAM. Then I have only to say, they have no business here. They must go to the Patent Office.

Mr. STUART. The gentleman from Indiana is equally mistaken. Their former patent has expired, and Congress alone possesses the power to extend it. They applied here in time, but their bill of the last session was lost, as I have stated.

Mr. Speaker, I know all about this question; and I do not hesitate to say, unqualifiedly, that a more meritorious application cannot be presented to the consideration of Congress, nor one, the granting of which, would be more beneficial to the agricultural community. The passage of this bill cannot interfere with the rights of any other persons. The bill simply proposes to give to these inventors what they have invented, and they are required by it to establish their inventions by proof before the Commissioner of Patents, who will embrace in their specifications such inventions only as they can so establish. And certainly all that they have invented, they are entitled to, upon every principle of justice. All that this bill proposes, is to do them justice; and I am not willing further to detain the House, or hazard the success of the bill by talking about it.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. As I am not opposed to the renewal of the patent, if it is proper to do so, and wishing some time to look into and consider it, I would move that the House do now adjourn, and then this question will come up when we next call for reports of committees. I only suggest such a motion.

Mr. STUART. I am so satisfied that this thing is right, and it having received the indorsement of the Committees of both Houses, 1 move the previous question.

Mr. DUNHAM. I ask for the reading of the bill. It gives fourteen years' extension

Mr. ORR. I rise to a privileged motion. I move the House adjourn.

Mr. ROBBINS. I hope not; there is so much business upon the Speaker's table. Mr. ORR. I demand tellers.

Mr. POLK demanded the yeas and nays; but they were not ordered.

Tellers were then ordered, and Messrs. ORR and MEACHAM appointed.

The question was then taken, and the tellers reported-ayes 54, nays 73.

So the House refused to adjourn.

Mr. HAVEN. Before the vote is taken, I desire to learn from the chairman of the Committee on Patents, [Mr. CARTTER,] whether there was any evidence before that committee in reference to the assignment by these patentees of their right? Mr. CARTTER. I recollect of none. I will state to the gentleman from New YorkThe SPEAKER. This conversation is not in, order, and can only be allowed by unanimous

consent.

There was no objection,

Mr. CARTTER. The machine has never been

valuable of what man has ever achieved in qualifying himself for self-government.

The Mosaic Republic-Rome and her Empire-the transitory Commonwealths of Italy and Germany, which heralded the revival of learningall stand as beacon-lights to warn and instruct us. All that is of value in the institutions of the Great Alfred or modern Britain is ours-improved, perfected, and divested of every element which can interfere with, or enfeeble the sovereignty of the people. We are, in truth, the residuary legatees of all that the blood and treasure of mankind expended for four thousand years have accomplished in the cause of human freedom. In our hands alone is the precious deposit. Before God and the world, we are responsible for this legacy. Not for our own benefit only, but for the benefit and happiness of the whole family of man. What course, then, shall this Government take to perpetuate our liberties and to diffuse our free institutions over the world?

1st. We must guard our constitutional grant of delegated power from infraction. We must abide within the limits prescribed by the States to the General Government. We must discreetly exercise the powers actually granted, and abstain from the exercise of all powers not granted.

2d. We must so direct the foreign affairs of this Government, that the progress of liberty shall be promoted and not retarded. This progress may not be promoted by war except under peculiar circumstances. Peace, as I said upon a former occasion, is the true policy of this Republic. Peace is the animating genius of our institutions;" and, indeed, ought to be of those of all

nations.

people who implore assistance," is not only in conformity with the universal practice of nations, but it is sustained and inculcated by the best authorities on public law. Vattel says:

"But if the prince attacking the fundamental laws, gives his subjects a legal right to resist him--if tyranny becoming insupportable, obliges the nation to rise in their defence, every foreign power has a right to succor an oppressed people who implore their assistance.

Again, the same author says:

"For when a people from good reasons take up arms against an oppressor, justice and generosity require that brave men should be assisted in defence of their liberties. Whenever, therefore, a civil war is kindled in a State, foreign powers may assist that party which appears to them to have justice on its side. He who assists an odious tyranthe who declares for an unjust and rebellious people, offends against his duty."

So much for the law; now as to the practice. Mr. Wheaton says, in his history of the "Modern Law of Nations:"

the application, by the allied Powers, of the principle of "The first war of the French Revolution originated in armed intervention to the internal affairs of France, for the purpose of checking the progress of her revolutionary principles and the extension of her military power. That this was the avowed motive of the Powers allied in the Conti

nental war of 1792 will be apparent from the examination

of historical documents."

He says again:

"That the measures adopted by Austria, Russia, and Prussia, at the Congress of Troppau and of Laybach, in respect to the Neapolitan revolution of 1820, were founded on principles adapted to give the great Powers of the European continent a perpetual pretext for interfering in the internal concerns of its different States."

Mr. Wheaton, speaking of that period of time between the peace of Westphalia (1648) and that of Utrecht, of 1713, says:

"Whatever disputes might arise as to its [intervention] application, the principle itself was acknowledged on alí

hands."

despots of the world by any such proclamation. What hope would remain to the oppressed after such a declaration? The radiant light which, emanating from this Republic, has so long cheered and animated their hearts would shine no longer -all would look black and cheerless, and despair would settle darkly on their prospects.

Besides, would not the establishment of the principle of non-intervention as the law of nations, be in direct opposition to the principles declared by Mr. Monroe in relation to this continent? Does any one doubt, that if this country felt itself bound, under no circumstances and at no time, to interfere with the affairs of Europe, that before many years monarchical governments would be established in the whole Southern portion of this continent? Does any one doubt that, before many years, the Island of Cuba would be a dependency of Great Britain? It does, then, seem to me palpable that while peace is the policy of this country, and while we should always bear in mind the admonition of Washington against entangling alliances, that it would be suicidal to the honor, to the interests and prospective power of this Government, if the United States should incur any obligation by which they would forever be forbidden from interfering in the affairs of other nations whenever circumstances in any case might render it necessary, just, and expedient. Therefore it seems to me that this principle of non-intervention would be in direct violation of all the rights and duties of a free and independent republic

I cannot give my consent to any proclamation of principles, which may be construed to abridge the right and sacred duty which belongs to this Government, to do whatever it may choose to do in aid of any people who are striving to throw off the yoke of despotism.

But, Mr. President, there are, in my judgment, two extremes, which should be avoided in the conduct of our foreign relations. 1st. We should not recklessly interfere with the affairs of foreign nations. We should count the cost, weigh well the duty and necessity, and be sure that our objects are practicable and attainable, consistent with the principles of our Government and promotive of human liberty and happiness. Washington, and the master spirits of that age of great men, knew well, that in the infancy of this Government, we were not able to cope with the European belligerents who had given us such just cause of offence. But he foresaw the period when this Republic would be able, not only to protect itself, but to stand forth as one of the greatest Powers of the earth. He foresaw, likewise, that our mission was not compatible with any entangling alliances with other nations. He therefore admonished us to avoid all such connection. Notwithstanding, sir, the able and ingenious manner in which the invitation has been given, that we should entangle ourselves in a coalition with Great Britain to dictate this new law of non-intervention to all nations, I am, so far as it respects this overture, for abiding by the advice of Washington-I want no entangling alliances.

2d. The other extreme which we should avoid, and into which so many are desious that we should rush headlong, without a glance to the future, is, that forgetting all our obligations and duties to the cause of humanity, and to the principles of universal freedom, we should, from unworthy fears or false conservatism, hastily decide that we have no concern in the condition of the world beyond our own boundaries; and precipitately resolve, that in no event and under no circumstances shall we interfere in behalf of oppressed nations.

I cannot consent to yield and abandon this natural right, which all nations from time immemorial have exercised. Sir, I say that intervention, not for the purpose of helping an odious tyrant to put down liberty-because that is against the laws of God and man-but in behalf of "an oppressed

thorough examination of those writers, that all they mean to say is, that no nation has a right to interfere with the domestic concerns or the municipal institutions of foreign countries, or to stir up to rebellion their citizens or subjects. But they all agree to the right to intervene when a people have actually risen and are striving to throw off intolerable oppression.

Now, sir, in the practical application of these principles to the important topic of the day, I will take hold of that idea which others seem to have handled with such significant delicacy. I am not afraid to express my opinions on this subject, or, indeed, on any other, although the press (which, God knows, is brave enough) seems to shrink from touching it; and I say, for one, that I am not preHungary, partly because Russia is our old, and true, and faithful friend, and partly because Hungarian liberty, through the instrumentality of the United States, is at present an idea Utopean and impracticable. This proposition is self-evident, and requires no demonstration; it is an impossible thing, and what is impossible can't happen, never come to pass. But, Mr. President, though I am not prepared, nor willing to go to war with Russia, or to disturb the present state of things in Hungary, about which we have so little satisfactory information, I will once more repeat, and declare it in the face of the world, as my opinion, that this Government has an indisputable and perfect right to interfere whenever, by such interference, she can promote her own interests and advance the cause of liberty-whenever, by such grasp of tyranny an oppressed nation, whom she may see fit to assist and to place among the independent nations of the world. This is a principle which we cannot, we dare not, we never will relinquish. It is an inherent principle of nationality, under no pretence whatever to be surrendered.

It is my deliberate opinion, sir, that we not only have the right, but that it would be our duty, under some circumstances, in our own good time, when the occasion is roper, and it may be practicable, to assist any people who rise to achieve their liberties and to establish a republican government. Sir, it has been practiced by all nations from time immemorial; and all the paper promul-interference, she may successfully rescue from the gations which will ever be made will never stop this practice among nations. The only way in which it can be arrested, is by appealing to their interest and safety-by boldly declaring that we will interfere whenever it suits us. Sir, what law will they or do they consult except the law of their own will? You cannot chain up the great Powers of the earth by paper declarations of the law of nations. The law of nations in modern times, as well as of old, is the law of the strongest. This we experienced to our loss and sorrow for many years, during which our commerce was plundered by Great Britain and France, and for which redress has been vainly sought up to this time by our suffering fellow-citizens.

It is true, indeed, that nations have generally exercised this right for the purposes of oppression and injustice, and in hostility to the rights of mankind. But a better time is coming, the time when the United States may interpose against the oppressor and in favor of the oppressed.

Therefore, I am unwilling, after tyranny has so long had sway, and lorded it over the destinies of mankind, now to avow a principle which leaves to its tender mercies the happiness of the whole hu

man race.

Sir, an avowal by us of the principle of nonintervention would raise a wall up, around this Republic, as high as heaven, and would shut in the light of liberty from surrounding nations. The avowal of such a principle at this time would be received with one universal shout of joy by all the potentates of Europe, and with one universal wail of lamentation and woe by all true lovers of freedom on earth. I am unwilling to gratify the

Sir, if tyrants have used it heretofore to enthrall mankind, this growing Republic will some of these days use it for their freedom. In peace let it be maintained with unfaltering tenacity; in war let it be asserted by all the power of arms; and when the great contest begins, as before 1900 it must, between free principles and the right of self government and despotic power, then let it be inscribed upon all our banners-everywhere— wherever they float, on every sea, and land, and ocean and continent, where the warfare rages, let it herald the advent of freedom and national independence, and the discomfiture of tyranny and oppression.

I move that the resolution be laid upon the table and printed for the use of the Senate.

Mr. MILLER. I have also received a copy of the resolutions just presented by my colleague; but as the subject-matter to which they relate is now before the Senate, in the resolutions presented by the Senator from Rhode Island, [Mr. CLARKE,] will not, at this time, during the morning hour trespass upon the Senate with any remarks of mine, but will at an early day take occasion to respond to these resolutions, and express my views fully upon the important matter there embraced.

And although I do not acknowledge the doctrine of instruction in any of its forms, yet the expressed opinion of the Legislature of New Jersey

The motion was then agreed to.

PAPERS WITHDRAWN AND REFERRED.
On motion by Mr. HAMLIN, it was

Ordered, That the memorial of the assistant marshals for taking the census in Piscataquis county, Maine, on the files of the Senate, be referred to the Committee of Claims. On motion by Mr. CLEMENS, it was

Ordered, That the documents on the files of the Senate relating to the claim of the State of Alabama for interest on deferred payments on the five per cent. fund, under the compact for her admission into the Union, be referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

On motion by Mr. ATCHISON, it was

Ordered, That the memorial of the heirs of Hascal Detchmendy, on the files of the Senate, be referred to the Committee on Private Land Claims.

On motion by Mr. ATCHISON, it was Ordered, That the petition of J. Epes Cowan, on the files of the Senate, be referred to the Committee on Private Land Claims.

On motion by Mr. JONES, of Iowa, it was

Ordered, That the petition of Charles H. Buxenstein, on the files of the Senate, be referred to the Committee on Pensious.

On motion by Mr. FISH, it was

Ordered, That the heirs of David Noble have leave to withdraw their petition and papers.

REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES.

Mr. JONES, of Iowa, from the Committee on Pensions, to which was referred the petition of Adam Hays, submitted an adverse report; which was ordered to be printed.

He also, from the same committee, to which was referred the bill for the relief of Philip Miller, reported it without amendment.

Mr. SHIELDS, from the Committee for the District of Columbia, to which was referred the bill to amend an act entitled "An act to incorporate the Washington Gas Light Company," approved July 8, 1848, reported it without amend

ment.

He also, from the same committee, to which was referred the memorial of the Rector of St. John's Church, Washington, reported a bill for the relief of St. John's Church, in the city of Washington; which was read and passed to the second reading.

Mr. DAVIS, from the Committee on Commerce, to which was referred the bill to provide for the removal of obstructions in the river Savannah, in the State of Georgia, and for the improvement of the same, reported it without amendment.

Mr. DOWNS, from the Committee on Private Land Claims, to which was referred the petition of Joseph H. D. Bowmar, reported a bill for his relief; which was read and passed to the second reading.

CUBAN PRISONERS IN SPAIN.

Mr. DOUGLAS, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, to which was referred the bill for the relief of American citizens lately imprisoned and pardoned by the Queen of Spain, reported it without amendment. He also asked the unanimous consent of the Senate to have the bill taken up and disposed of, as it was of urgent necessity.

The Senate accordingly proceeded to consider the bill as in Committee of the Whole; and no amendment being made, it was reported to the Senate, was ordered to a third reading, and was read a third time and passed.

NOTICES OF BILLS.

Mr. MALLORY gave notice of his intention to ask leave to introduce a bill to be entitled "A bill relating to the sale of public lands in certain cases."

Mr. WALKER gave notice of his intention to ask leave to introduce a bill for the relief of the heirs and representatives of Captain

MEXICAN INDEMNITY.

On the motion of Mr. HUNTER, the Senate proceeded to consider, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill to provide for carrying into execution, in further part, the twelfth article of the treaty with Mexico, concluded at Guadalupe Hidalgo; and no amendment being made, it was reported to the Senate, was ordered to a third reading, and was read a third time and passed.

FLORIDA SENATORIAL ELECTION.

Mr. BERRIEN. Being compelled to leave the city to-morrow, and being uncertain as to the

be my duty to ask to be relieved from serving on the select committee raised on the memorial of honorable D. L. Yulee, and that some other Senator may be appointed in my place.

The honorable Senator was excused from further service on the committee.

The PRESIDENT. It will be necessary for the Senate to select a member of the select committee, in the place of the honorable Senator from Georgia, who has been excused.

Mr. PEARCE. I hope that by unanimous consent the Chair will be allowed to appoint.

The PRESIDENT. The committee was selected in the first place by the Senate. The Chair, therefore, prefers that the Senate itself shall fill the vacancy. It is an important committee, raised to determine the rights of persons claiming seats in the Senate. The Chair does not, therefore, wish to take the responsibility of filling the vacancy. He trusts, then, if such is the pleasure of the Senate, that Senators will now prepare their ballots for another member of the committee. Or the balloting can be postponed until to-morrow.

Mr. WALKER. I move to postpone it until

to-morrow.

The PRESIDENT. It will lie over until tomorrow, and the Chair will then request Senators to prepare their ballots for a member of the select

committee.

DISCIPLINE IN THE NAVY.

Mr. BADGER. The Senate will recollect that I reported some time ago, from the Naval Committee, a bill to enforce discipline and promote good conduct in the naval service, by which it was intended to provide a substitute for corporal punishment. That bill was reported by the committee, in the same form in which it passed the Senate, with great unanimity, at the last session of Congress. It is very desirable that that bill should be acted on speedily. We have squadrons now about going to sea, in distant ports of the United States, and it is important that the officers of the Navy should have some system to enforce discipline. I should ask the Senate to take up the bill to which I have referred this morning, but for the fear that it might interfere with the honorable Senator from Mississippi, [Mr. McRAE,] who is entitled to the floor on another subject. I wish merely to say at this time, that I believe the bill will not occupy much time. It is a case of emergency that it should be passed at once, and I give notice that I will ask the Senate to-morrow morning to take up the bill and dispose of it.

THE COMPROMISE MEASURES. The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution declaring the compromise measures a definite settlement of all questions growing out of the institution of slavery.

Mr. McRAE resumed and finished the speech which he commenced on Thursday last against the resolution. At his request its publication is deferred. It will be published in the Appendix.

Mr. BADGER. Mr. President, I think the honorable Senator from Mississippi, [Mr. McRAE,] who has delivered a speech, which will certainly not soon be forgotten in this body, as well for its substance as for his admirable manner, has, nevertheless, fallen into an error as to the character and purpose of the resolution now under the consideration of the Senate, submitted by his late colleague in this body; and I wish, for a few moments, to call the attention of the Senate to what is the true character of that resolution.

The honorable Senator set out with the declaration, that it involved the merits of the several acts of Congress referred to in it, and which form the adjustment or con promise which was adopted at the first session of the last Congress; that this resolution requires in every one who votes in its favor, an approval of each and every one of those measures; and, therefore, cannot properly receive the support of any member of this body who denies or doubts the propriety of any one of those

measures.

Now this to me is totally and absolutely a misapprehension of what the resolution contains. The resolution, if I am able to understand the meaning of the plain English words in which it is drawn up, says nothing about the merits of any one of the particular acts referred to. It affirms nothing as to the excellence or propriety of the particular provisions contained in any one of those

acts.

It proposes no approval, on the part of this body, of the provisions contained in any one of those acts. It declares nothing respecting them, except as a whole. It declares nothing respecting them, except that those acts do, as a whole, in their mutual connection and dependence upon cach other, constitute an adjustment-constitute a settlement-and constituting a settlement, that they ought not to be touched by the legislation of Congress until experience shall demonstrate that further legislation is necessary. That is what the resolution declares, and that is all that the resolution declares. As it is very brief, allow me to read it to the Senate:

Be it resolved, That the series of measures embraced in the acts entitled " An act proposing to the State of Texas the establishment of her northern and western boundaries, the relinquishment, by the said State, of all territory claimed by her exterior to said boundaries, and of all her claims upon the United States, and to establish a territorial govern ment for New Mexico," approved September 9, 1830; "An act for the admission of the State of California into the Union," approved September 9, 1850; " An act to establish a territorial government for Utah," approved September 9, 1850; An act to amend and supplementary to an act eutitled 'An act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters,' approved Feb ruary 12, 1793," approved September 18, 1850; and "An act to suppress the slave trade in the District of Columbia," approved September 20, 1850. commonly known as the "Compromise Acts," are, in the judgment of this body, a settlement in principle and substance-a final settlement of the dangerous and exciting subjects which they embrace, and ought to be adhered to by Congress until time and experience shall demonstrate the necessity of further legisla tion to guard against evasion or abuse.

Now, I appeal to every gentleman who is a member of this body, if anything can be clearer than that the resolution affirms nothing but this: that these measures constitute a settlement of the

questions to which they referred and which they embraced. Why, it is there in plain and unmis takable language. There is not one word, letter, or syllable in the resolution that says any one of those measures was in in itself the wisest or the best; or that it was even wise or good, considered by itself. The affirmation is, that these measures constitute a settlement; and from that is deduced a further assertion, that, constituting a settlement, they ought to be tried, they ought to be allowed to rest, they should not be interfered with until by time and experience the necessity of change shall be demonstrated. Is not that clear? Why, in dozen individuals who had been engaged in a partthe very ordinary transactions of life, if half a nership transaction, or any other mutual business, them, and that settlement should be made by mu come to a settlement of pending difficulties between tual grants and releases among them, might it not be-would it not be affirmed, that those mutual acts of grant and release constituted a settlement, and ought to be adhered to? But surely it never would be, it never could be understood, that each and every one of the parties entering into this mu tual arrangement with regard to their difficulties, approved of each and every thing that was done in the whole series of measures that constituted the adjustment. Certainly not. Therefore, as far as I am able to understand the meaning of the language in which this resolution is couched, there is not in it a single word, letter, or syllable which af firms anything about any one of these measures, or does anything but declare that, together, they constitute a settlement. A settlement how? In principle and substance. It does not declare that the principles of each and every separate measure were right principles; but that the whole together consti tuted, in principle and substance, a settlement. Why in principle and substance? Because these measures were separate and distinct acts of legis lation, and do not, in form, appear to be a settlement. Each one, on its face, stands as an independent exercise of the legislative power. Therefore, they do not constitute, in form, a settlement. But the language of the resolution is, that they constitute a settlement in principle and substance. This means, that although they were all separately passed, they were all designed-they were all understood they were all voted upon by those who passed them, with the understanding that there was a mutual connection and dependance between them; and that after they were all passed, they were, and were entitled to be, considered a settlement of the questions embraced in them. I shall vote very cheerfully for this reso lution; but I shall not consider myself, in so voting, as expressing, in the remotest degree, the opinion that I approve of all, or any one of these separate

measures by itself considered. It is true I do ap prove of most of these measures. I approved of them at the time. But in voting for this resolution I shall express no such sentiment; I shall merely express this: that these measures constituted a settlement; and that, irrespective of my opinion with regard to the merits of the particular measure which entered into and formed that settlement, the settlement ought to be adhered to; it ought to be tried until it shall be ascertained by experience, that it is necessary that Congress should enter into further acts of legislation upon the subject. That is what I understand by it.

A word now in regard to the form which the resolution has assumed in consequence of the amendment which I had the honor to submit to the Senate. If I understood the honorable Senator from Mississippi, he said he considered the resolution better in its original shape-liable to less objection-one for which he could vote-while he would not feel himself at liberty to vote for the resolution in its present form. Let us see what the original resolution in this respect declares; and how it stands in its amended form; and let us see if there is anything in it, in its present form, that can be considered objectionable, which did not exist in a higher degree in the form in which it was originally proposed. The original resolution says that these are, in the judgment of this body, en'titled to be recognized as a definitive adjustment 'and settlement of the distracting questions grow'ing out of the system of domestic slavery-and 'as such said measures should be acquiesced in 'and faithfully observed by all good citizens."

measures

66

In what sense is an approval of the particular measures referred to--of the merits of the several acts of Congress composing that series of measures-how is an opinion expressed upon the merits of these particular measures, more in the amended form than in the original form of the resolution? The original form declares that they are entitled to be recognized as a definitive adjustment and settlement of the distracting questions growing out of the system of domestic slavery; while the amended resolution declares that they are a settlement in principle and substance-a final settlement of the dangerous and exciting subjects which they embrace. If approval is implied in the one case, I pray you to tell me if the ingenuity of man can show that the same approval is not implied in the other? It cannot be shown. Gentlemen may assume that it is so: gentlemen, if they take that view of it, will, of course, act upon the supposition that it is so. But I maintain, that upon a just exposition of this language, the idea of approval of the particular measures constituting the adjustment, is no more expressed in the one case than in the other. It was not, therefore, on that ground, that I submitted the amendment which the honorable Senator from Mississippi, [Mr. FooтE,] who offered the resolution, felt willing to accept, and which he, not having control of the resolution, in the judgment of the Chair, was, on a division, adopted by the Senate: but it was for another purpose. The resolution as originally framed, declared these measures were to be acquiesced in indefinitely, under all circumstances, without any limitation. I suggested then, in substance-I do not remember the particular phraseology which I used that there was at least a plausible objection to the resolution in undertaking to give an unalterable character to these measures. I did not esteem that objection as just; still it was entertained; and I wished to remove from the resolution every objection, not only real but plausible; and therefore suggested the amendment by which it is declared with regard to these measures that they ought to be maintained untouched, until we see what will be the result upon them of time and experience.

Then, in the second place, I thought that the original form of the resolution was subject to a real objection, which was, that the Senate, instead of declaring what ought to be the action of this body, would declare by it what should be the duty of the citizens of the country. It seems to me unnecessary to declare that the citizens of the country ought to obey the laws of the country; and at the same time I thought the resolution insufficient, because it ought to declare our own views and our own purpose with regard to the maintenance of those laws-the legislative power over that subject being in this body and in the other House. It was upon that ground that this

amendment was offered by me, and it was adopted by the Senate. And I must say, that if there is anything in the original resolution which has merits which commend it to the favor of the Senate, no part of those merits have been removed by the amendment which I had the honor to submit. Mr. UNDERWOOD. As the usual hour for adjournment has arrived, if the honorable Senator will give way I will move that the Senate adjourn. Mr. BADGER assented.

And then, on motion, the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
MONDAY, February 2, 1852.
The House met at twelve o'clock, m.
by the Rev. Mr. MORGAN.

The Journal of Friday last was read. Mr. GIDDINGS said that he discovered that the Journal of Friday last states that he had reported, without amendment, from the Committee on Territories the bill authorizing the Governor of the Territory of New Mexico to call an extra session of the Legislative Assembly of said Territory. He reported the bill with an amendment, and desired the Journal to be so corrected.

It was ordered, and the Journal was then approved. Mr. SIBLEY asked the unanimous consent of the House to allow him to introduce a resolution. MOORE AND HASCALL.

Mr. CARTTER. The gentleman understands that the bill has been already read by sections. Mr. SACKETT. Last week; and I ask that it be read again.

The question was then taken on the motion to refer the bill; and there were-yeas 39, nays 137, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Abercrombie, Averett, Bragg, Caskie, Churchwell, Clingman, Curtis, Daniel, Dawson, Dunham, Evans, Faulkner, Ficklin, Floyd, Gamble, Isham G. Harris, Haven, Holladay, Ingersoll, Ives, Jackson, Andrew Johnson, George W. Jones, J. Glancy Jones, Kurtz, Letcher, Mason, Millson, Olds, Outlaw, Samuel W. Parker, Phelps, Powell, Sackett, Smith, Alexander H. Stephens, Toombs, Wallace, and Wilcox-39.

NAYS-Messrs. Aiken, Charles Allen, Willis Allen, Allison, Andrews, William Appleton, Ashe, Babcock, Barrere, Bell, Bibighaus, Bissell, Bocock, Brenton, Briggs, Albert G. Brown, George H. Brown, Buell, Burrows, Busby, E. Carrington Cabell, Caldwell, Lewis D. Campbell, Thompson

Mr. CARTTER called for the order of busi

ness.

Mr. SIBLEY again asked the unanimous consent of the House to introduce the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Committee on Public Lands be instructed to inquire into the expedieney of devoting the proceeds of the Fort Snelling military reserve, when sold, to the benefit of the University of Minnesota, in lieu of a like number of acres of land already granted by Congress for that purpose, and that the said committee report by bill or otherwise.

There being no objection, the resolution was introduced.

The question was then taken, and the resolution was agreed to.

Mr. MOLONY. I have a favor to ask of the House-one which I rarely ask, but always vote to grant. It is simply the introduction of a bill, of which previous notice has been given, which I desire may be referred to a committee.

It was then read for information, as follows: A bill granting to the State of Illinois and Indiana the right of way for, and a portion of the public lands to aid in, the construction of a railroad from Lafayette, Indiana, across the Grand Prairie, via Middleport, to La Salle county, Illinois. Mr. SKELTON objected.

Mr. FOWLER asked the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a resolution.

Mr. SKELTON called for the orders of the day. The SPEAKER. The Chair has already stated that the unfinished business of the House is the consideration of bill No. 193, being a bill for the relief of Hiram Moore and John Hascall. A motion was made to commit the said bill to a Committee of the Whole House, made the order of the day, and printed, upon which the previous question was moved and seconded, and the main question ordered to be put; and upon this question the yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. CARTTER. I submit whether the previous question was not called upon the motion to pass it?

The SPEAKER. That will be the effect if the House vote down the proposition to refer. If the House refuse to refer the bill, it will, under the operation of the previous question, be brought to a vote upon the engrossment of the bill.

Mr. SACKETT. I ask, if the House refuse to refer the bill, whether it will be then open to amendment?

The SPEAKER. It will not the previous question having been ordered.

Mr. SACKETT. I only wish to say to the

cock, Conger, John G. Davis. Dimmick, Disney, Dockery, Doty, Duncan, Eastman, Edgerton, Edmundson, Ewing, Fitch, Fowler, Henry M. Fuller, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Gaylord, Giddings, Goodenow, Goodrich, Gorman, Green, Grey, Grow, Hall, Hammond, Harper, Hart, Hascall, Hebard, Hendricks, Henn, Hibbard, Horsford, Houston, Howard, John W. Howe, Thomas M. Howe, Thomas Y. How, Jenkins, James Johnson, John Johnson, Robert W. Jolm son, Daniel T. Jones, George G. King, Kuins, Lockhart, Mace, Mann, Edward C. Marshall, Martin, McCorkle, McLanahan, McMullin, McNair, Meacham, Meade, Miner, Molony, Henry D. Moore, John Moore, Morehead, Murphy, Murray, Nabers, Newton, Orr, Andrew Parker, Peas lee, Penniman, Perkins, Porter, Price, Riddle, Robbins, Robinson, Russell, Schoolcraft, Scurry, David L. Seymour, Origen S. Seymour, Skelton, Smart, Stanly, Benjamin Stanton, Abr'm P. Stevens, Stone, St. Martin, Strat. ton, Strother, Stuart, Sweetser. Taylor, George W. Thontson, Thurston, Townshend, Tuck, Venable, Walbridge, Walsh, Ward, Watkins, Welch, Wells, Addison White, Wildrick, Williams, and Woodward-137.

So the bill was not committed.

Mr. SACKETT. Mr. Speaker, is the previous question exhausted?

The SPEAKER. It is not exhausted.

Mr. CARTTER. Is it in order to move a reconsideration of the last vote, and to lay that motion upon the table?

The SPEAKER. Mr. CARTTER. consider.

Mr. SACKETT. The SPEAKER. proposition.

It is.

I make that motion to re

I believe I have the floor.
The gentleman made no

Mr. SACKETT. I inquired if the previous question was exhausted, with the intention of moving a reconsideration.

The SPEAKER. It is not a debatable proposition at all events.

Mr. SACKETT. I wished to make a statement in regard to this bill. I desire to move a reconsideration.

The SPEAKER. For what purpose does the gentleman from New York [Mr. SACKETT] claim the floor?

Mr. SACKETT. For the purpose of moving a reconsideration.

Mr. CARTTER. I had anticipated that motion already, for the benefit of the gentleman, under the recognition of the Chair.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York [Mr. SACKETT] claimed, and was upon the floor, and the Chair thinks he was entitled to it..

Mr. SACKETT. Is it in order to make an explanation to the House, of the object of my motion? Mr. CARTTER. I will inquire, if the gentleman having voted against the proposition, can now make a motion to reconsider?

The SPEAKER. The gentleman cannot make such a motion.

Mr. ROBBINS moved to lay the motion to reconsider upon the table; which motion was agreed

to.

The question then being, Shall the bill be en