TUSKEGEE, (ALABAMA,) October 18, 1838.

SIR: I have previously advised you of my failure, as agent of the Creek warriors, in obtaining possession of the Seminole negroes that you had directed to be turned over

I have now to request, that should General Arbuckle be unable to comply with the instructions I understand he has received, (which, from my knowledge of Indian character, I have no doubt he will,) this claim may be laid before the agent who may be appointed to investigate the claims of the Creeks, with the necessary documents, that it may be examined and reported on by him.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Georgia. I would ask the gentleman if it is not a rule of law, sanctioned by the Supreme Court of the United States, that in making their decisions they follow the decisions made in the States?

Mr. SACKETT. It is as the gentleman states it. Of course they would be governed by the laws of the State when they do not conflict with the laws of Congress. That does not touch this point at all. This point stands clear of all construction from State authority or jurisdiction. It is an important proposition, and one to be settled by the Constitution and laws of the United States, the

laws of the Government that declare that all men are born free and equal. The question whether slavery existed among the Seminoles is a very wide field and very important subject for consideration, in which nothing can be taken by presumption-nothing can be taken by inference. It is a question to be determined by the absolute existence or non-existence of law; no presumption can create slavery among these Indians, but it must be established by proof of existing law. If slavery exists there at all, the question will naturally arise, what kind of slavery existed there? What sort of bondage was it? Was it the bondage of the African race, or the bondage of the Seminole race? Was it slavery from year to year, or was it slavery from generation to generation? Was it slavery by which the parties enslaved became liberated after a certain period of time? How was the relation of the enslaved to be changed by this operation of General Watson?

The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. JOHNSON] alluded to the letter of General Taylor, in which he made a statement in reference to this transaction. Without taking time to read the letter, I will only state that General Taylor washed his hands entirely of this transaction. He did not consider that these men were slaves. I will read the letter, however:

HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE SOUTH, ( TAMPA, FLORIDA,) June 2, 1838. GENERAL: I have the honor to acknowledge your communication of the 10th of May, 1833, accompanied by one of the 9th, from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, addressed to Captain Cooper, acting Secretary of War, on the subject of turning over certain negroes captured by the Creek warriors in Florida to a Mr. Collins, their agent, in compliance with an engagement of General Jesup.

I know nothing of the negroes in question, nor of the subject, further than what is contained in the communication above referred to; but I must state distinctly, for the information of all concerned, that, while I shall hold myself ever ready to do the utmost in my power to get the Indians and their negroes out of Florida, as well as to remove them to their new homes west of the Mississippi, I cannot for a momentonsent to meddle in this transaction, or to be concerned for the benefit of Mr. Collins, the Creek Indians, or any one else; or to interfere, in any way, between the Indians and their negroes, which may have a tendency to deprive the former of their property, and reduce the latter from a comparative state of freedom to that of slavery; at the same time, I shall take every means to obtain and restore to his lawful owner any slave among the Indians who has absconded or been captured by them.

Very respectfully, I have the honor to be, General, your obedient servant, Z. TAYLOR,

Brevet Brig. Gen. United States Army, commanding. General R. JONES, Adjutant General United States Army, Washington, D. C.

That was something like a year after the transaction.

In October, 1838, this whole transaction, so far as this contract is concerned, is still in the dark; and even at that late day, Mr. Collins, the agent, writes to the Secretary of War, to see if some arrangement cannot be made with the Creeks, so as to enable his principal to get hismoney back. The following is his letter:

Will you inforin me who the agent will be, and the time represent this claim? and place of the investigation, that I may be present to

From my long and intimate acquaintance with the Creeks, I was enabled, while there, to allay any excitement likely to be produced on this subject, and prevented, for the present, any attempt on their part to take possession of the negroes, by the promise that the Government would ultimately satisfy them

With the highest respect, I am yours, &c.,

Hon. JOEL R. POINSETT,

N. F. COLLINS.

Secretary of War, Washington.

Mr. JOHNSON. Collins was the agent of the Indians.

Mr. SACKETT. He was never the agent of the Creeks, except in this transaction. He was the agent of the Choctaws.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Collins was the agent. 'Mr. SACKETT. Mr. Armstrong was the man who had the money; but that is immaterial. Collins was following up these negroes as late as the 18th October, expressly avowing himself the agent of the Creeks, when he writes to the Secretary of War—Mr. Poinsett-that he has not been able to possess himself of them, and suggests whether there may not be a claim made before the Creek Indians themselves-they having guarantied their title to these negroes-to indemnify Watson, his principal, and requests the Secretary of War to let him know when the agent of the Creeks will be acting upon that subject, that he may have the matter presented. Then there was no thought of making a claim against this Government: that was an after-thought, probably the invention of some claims agent-a sort of Galphin, where agents and owners go snucks.

[Mr. WILDRICK, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported as correctly enrolled, "An act making land warrants assignable;" which received the signature of the Speaker.]

Mr. EVANS. I do not propose to detain the committee more than fifteen minutes, so that if any gentleman desires to address the House he may then be ready to obtain it. This is a funny affair altogether, and the gentleman from New York Mr. SACKETT] has elaborated it in the most scientific manner; so much so, that I apprehend he has put it beyond the comprehension of a jury. So far as I understand, this whole case lies in a few facts, and if gentlemen will give me a little of their patience I will endeavor to make it plain. There are several gentlemen upon this floor who have a remembrance of Judge Iverson. I I had the honor of serving with him here. Those who had the pleasure of his acquaintance know that a more polite and courteously deported gentleman-a gentleman whose statement can more entirely be relied upon, cannot be found upon this floor, or outside of this Hall. In all his actions, and in his behavior here, he displayed what he was-a Georgia gentleman. The gentleman from New York stated that he had passed over Judge Iverson's letterthat he had not read it, but had heard it read; that it was loose, rambling, and disconnected, and showed a failure of memory, and that it related to facts occurring thirteen years ago. It is true that it related to occurrences which took place thirteen or fourteen years ago, but it is not rambling, nor does it show any failure of the memory; on the contrary, it is stated with the utmost positiveness and clearness, and is conclusive upon one branch of the facts involved in this case. Mr. Iverson says that the Department of Indian Affairs sanctioned, nay, brought about this sale of negroes; negotiated it and fixed the price. I suppose that is the Government, and if not, there are abundant communications-letters written parallel with the occurrence-showing that the Secretary of War authorized all of the transactions with regard to it. The letters are here with the signature of Mr. Poinsett attached to them. Now, sir, the reading of these papers is not an interesting matter for anybody. I will take this one; Judge Iverson, a witness whose character is known to us all, says:

"Shortly after the return of the warriors composing what was called the Creek regiment, enlisted by General Jesup, in 1836, to serve in the Florida war against the Seminoles, and the removal of said warriors with their families, to the Creek nation West, General James C. Watson and myself were deputed as agents from the Alabama Emigrating Com pany (who removed the Creeks under contract) to the city of Washington, to settle up the accounts of said company with the Government. When we arrived in Washington, we found General Armstrong, Indian agent, in the city, with a delegation of Creek chiefs. A proposition was immediately made to General Watson and myself, by Carey C. Harris, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, to purchase a large lot of negroes, then claimed by said Creek regiment, and represented to be at the time in the custody of the Unl ted States, at Fort King, near New Orleans. The proposition was declined by me, but I was personally acquainted with most of the facts and conversations which occurred between the Department, the Indian Agent, Armstrong, and General Watson, and learned the following particulars: That these negroes had been captured in Florida by the Creek regiment, from hostile Seminoles; that agreeably to an agreement made with said regiment by General Jesup, they were to have all the property of the hostiles which they could capture, and they claimed these negroes; that General Armstrong and the delegation in Washington had authority to dispose of or sell their claim to these negroes; that the Seminoles who had emigrated to the West were very averse to allowing these negroes to go into the possession of the Creeks; that the Creeks were equally determined, when they arrived West, to seize and subject them to their own service. The War Department apprehended that serious difficulty would grow out of this conflicting claim, and that war would ensue between the Creeks and Seminoles in the contest for the negroes. It was deemed by the Department prudent, and indeed necessary, to prevent blood-shed and war between the two tribes, that the negroes should not be sent to the West, but should be sold in the United States. Hence the proposition from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to General Watson, to purchase the negroes. General Watson hesitated for several days, but being urged by Mr. Harris, and assured that the negroes would be delivered to his agent immediately, he consented to buy them, and paid the price fixed by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and General Armstrong, the agent. An order was issued from the Department, and an agent dispatched by General Watson to New Orleans, to receive the negroes. The United States officers in charge of them refused to deliver them; they were transported to Fort Gibson, and turned over to General Arbuckle, as I have been informed, and were by him surrendered to the Seminole Indians, or turned loose and joined them; so that they were wholly lost to General Watson. Given under my hand this 19th ALFRED IVERSON. December, 1851.

"DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, County of Washington:

"This day came before me, Nicholas B. Van Zandt, a jus tice of the peace in and for the county aforesaid, the above named Alfred Iverson, who made oath to the truth of the above and foregoing statement. Witness my hand and of ficial attestation, this 19th December, 1851.

"N. B. VAN ZANDT, Justice of Peace." Now, the United States had the property in its possession. That is the first position. The Secretary of War, the gentleman from New York says, had not sanctioned this Indian negro business. I am astonished at the gentleman. I am really surprised at his statement with this mass of evidence, of manuscript documents before him, which he might read if he would. In these documents is an assent of the Government, so far as the assent of the War Department will give it.

Mr. SACKETT. Where does the gentleman find that?

Mr. EVANS. The gentleman from Kentucky has the document. He will give it to you. Besides that, the printed books are full of it. It seems to me no one can miss who wants to look for it, unless there be a desire to escape the fact. I do not mean to say the gentleman has such a desire, but I think his professions have made him overlook what is immediately before him. I do not care a straw whether the documents contain the asserted matter or not. The Government of the United States had the negroes in possession, and it was extremely desirous to prevent a war. Now, I understand that the secret at the bottom of the whole of this matter was to prevent war between the Creeks and Seminoles, which would not cost us $15,000 merely, but $15,000,000. And we made a cheap bargain in this matter-one of the best bargains we could have made.

Mr. WELCH. It is, and has been alleged, that the principal reason assigned by the Secretary of War, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, or whatever officer of Government who had this matter in charge, for advising or consenting to the sale of these negroes by the Creeks, was to prevent a difficulty and a war between the two nations of Indians-the Creeks and the Seminoleswhen they should be removed to the West. The query I wish to propound is this: It will be found in several places in the voluminous correspondence which has been before the committee in re

gard to this matter, that the difficulty in separating the negroes, the slaves, as they are called, from. the Seminoles, was found principally in the fact,

that the Seminoles objected to their going into slavery in the service of white men. That, I think, General Armstrong states to be the fact. That was the final reason, the final difficulty, why they would not surrender them: that they should go along with them as their allies, and not be surrendered into slavery in the service of the white men. I wish to know how this difficulty would be relieved that it was apprehended might occur between two nations of Indians. The difficulty existed in the fact that both parties claimed the negroes. By allowing the one party, the Creeks, to sell their right to the negroes, and put them in what the Seminoles considered a worse condition, a condition which constituted the principal ground of their objection, could not remedy the difficulty. Mr. SACKETT. Will the gentleman from Maryland allow me

Mr. EVANS. One inquiry at a time. Let me answer the gentleman from Ohio before interrogating me anew.

Mr. SACKETT. The gentleman says that I misstated

Mr. EVANS. I do not say that you misstated the evidence.

Mr. SACKETT. I state now, that the letter which the gentleman produced as evidence that the Government had a knowledge of this contract, states no such fact.

Mr. EVANS. That brings up the document, then. Now, as the gentleman has made a point between us, though it has nothing to do with the case, I will read the letter. I did not propose to enter upon this matter at all, and only wanted to speak a few minutes to things that were relevant to the case; but since the gentleman has brought this matter up, I will read this letter of the 9th of May to Mr. Harris:

WAR DEPARTMENT,

}

OFFICE INDIAN AFFAIRS, May 9, 1838. SIR: The decision made a few days since, that the negroes captured by the Creek warriors in Florida should, in compliance with the engagement of General Jesup, be delivered to the delegation now here, has been communicated to them, with the intimation that when they had determined what disposition would be made of them, and communicated information of the same to this departinent, the necessary orders would be issued. In a communication just received from the delegation, they state they have appointed Nathaniel F. Collins, of Alabama, their attorney in fact, to receive the negroes. I have the honor to request that an order may be issued to the commanding officer at Fort Pike, to Major Isaac Clark, at New Orleans, to the commanding officer in Florida, and to any other officers who may have charge of them, to deliver to Mr. Collins all the negroes in question. He will, of course, hold them subject to the lawful claims of all white persons. Abraham and his family should be excepted, in consequence of a promise made by General Jesup. The officers should be instructed to exercise due cantion, so as to deliver only those captured by the Creeks. It is proper to remark, that it appears, from a letter received from, Lieutenant Sloan, that these Indians refused the $8,000 offered them, under the direction of General Jesup, for their interest in these negroes. Very respectfully, your most obedient servant, C. A. HARRIS, Commissioner. Captain S. COOPER, Acting Secretary of War. Here is the next letter from Mr. Harris, the same day-the very day of the sale:

WAR DEPARTMENT,

OFFICE INDIAN AFFAIRS, May 9, 1838. SIR: I have the honor to transmit, herewith, the copy of a communication made to the Secretary of War. and which has been returned by him to this office, with his approval indorsed upon it. I request that you will cause an order, such as is indicated in this paper, to be given as soon as practicable to the officers mentioned in it. I am not at pres ent aware that it will be necessary to give an order to any other than those nanied. I will thank you to cause me to be furnished with a copy of the orders issued, that Mr. Collins may be furnished with all proper papers. Very respectfully, your most obedient servant, C. A. HARRIS, Commissioner. Major General MACOMB, Commanding in Chief. And also a letter from the Adjutant General:

ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE, WASHINGTON, May 10, 1838. SIR Herewith you will receive a copy of a communication made to the Secretary of War by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. The request contained therein having been approved by the Secretary, you will please to give the necessary attention to the matter, so far as you are con cerned, and comply with the requisition of Mr. Collins. I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, R. JONES, Adjutant General. Major General JESUP, Commanding Army in Florida, Tampa, Florida. Brevet Major ZANTZINGER, Fort Pike, Louisiana.

There is a fact for you. There is the fact of the sale communicated to the Secretary of War, and he has so indorsed upon the back of it, for the requirement, mark, is, that the negroes be delivered to Mr. Collins, who was the agent of the

Mr. EVANS. Let the committee judge between us. They all hear what there is in this letter. I give the gentleman facts, but I cannot, as Dr. Johnson said in a parallel case, give him that spirit and discrimination of mind which will enable him to perceive them in a proper light. Yes, here are the facts. There was never a clearer indorsement; but it is not of the slightest importance upon the face of the globe whether it is so or not. It is a fact, that the Government was in possession of these negroes after a sale took place, with or without the knowledge of that Government. I will, for the sake of argument, admit, as the gentleman said, that the Government is without this knowledge, though the proof says that they had such knowledge. I do not care one straw whether they knew about the sale when it took place or not. I assert this to be true: If a sale of property, being in trust in my possession, is made to individuals, I am bound to deliver it, and if I allow it to be eloined and carried off, I am responsible for its value. If I accept the trust in the formal manner in which it was accepted by the Government, and do not carry it into effect, and the property is carried off, whether I knew of the sale or not, I am responsible for the property, much more, when I, myself, as the Government did, carry it off, and neglect, and refuse to make delivery. Neither does it make any difference whether these persons were property or not, if the Government be considered as making the sale, or as standing by and inducing a third party to make the purchase. Suppose the negroes were property. If they are, and the sale takes place with the consent of the United States, which has the article sold in possession, the Government is bound to make the delivery. If it fails to make delivery, it is bound for the consideration. Suppose they are not property. In that case, the title of the thing sold fails, and the party selling is called upon to make restitution of the value received, because he could give no valid title, nor make any valid delivery. In either case, he who has received money for which he has given no consideration must refund.

Now, let us imagine that the gentleman from New York [Mr. SACKETT] had been sold by the Government, which had received the money, and he is clearly entitled to his freedom, and seems to take it, too. [Laughter.] Suppose, I say, the gentleman had been sold by these Indians, the Government guarantying to make the delivery, I would like to know if they are not obliged, not only in equity but law, to refund the consideration money if they do not, or for defect of title cannot make the delivery? Does any one deny this? Has not the Government received money for property which the Government had in possession?-for consideration to the Indians was con

sideration to the Government then, and the spirit of all the papers showed it, no matter whether the thing sold was property or not. The Government allowed it to be carried off, and did not deliver it, and is that Government not bound to make restitution? Now, the Government did make a sale, and there is no use of dodging it; though it is of no importance whether they made it or not, for the United States induced the sale, brought it about, fixed the price, and ordered delivery, and then failed to fulfill the order, and that is the point of the

case.

But they did make the sale. No sober, candid man can look at all of these documents, and at the history of the whole transaction, and avoid saying that it was the Government who made this sale of these negroes on behalf of the Indians, besides having arranged it long before the capture that they should be the property of the Creeks, to be delivered to them or their authorized agents. They received the money. It was a consideration to prevent the shedding of blood upon your territory; a consideration which ought to hallow itself to the mind of every Representative here-a consideration which prevented expenses which now would have borne heavily upon us, and would have been to this day unpaid. It is an amount of money which you are bound in equity, in honor, and at law to refund to these parties. What dif ference is it, I repeat, whether what they sold was property or not? If it was property, they did not deliver it, and they are bound to refund the con

sideration. If it was not property, they are bound to refund the consideration, because they could make no title to it. But bound the Government is, if not for this reason-which I only allude to because it has been much dwelled upon on the other side-certainly for the reason that, whether they knew of the sale or not, assented or not, they held these negroes as the property of the Indians, and then, after notice of the sale, after themselves fixing the price, they eloined the property. For, whether the War Department was cognizant of the sale or not, we had the property and did not deliver it. According to my views of the matter, then, we are bound to pay the money, and there is no use of going into a rambling discussion about General Arbuckle or about General Taylor, who was, by the way, only talking about a delivery of such negroes as belonged to white owners. The committee can judge about the facts. All else is irrelevant, and there is no use of lugging in al these things and embarrassing the minds of the committee with such an accumulation of matter.

Mr. SACKETT. If the Government were bound to deliver, according to the terms of the order of the Indian Department, to the Creek Indians-for that was the term used-there will be no disagreement about that: If they were bound to deliver according to the terms of that order, they would be bound only to deliver such negroes as the Creek warriors took. That manifestly would be the case If General Watson, in the mean time, had stepped in and purchased, his rights would not be larger than the rights of the Creeks themselves. The evidence in the case, in regard to these negroes, is-and it is the difficulty in the case that the Creeks took none of these negroes.

Mr. EVANS. The gentleman has shifted his ground. Now he has got up a new difficulty; but there is this simple answer to it: There is no rea son for any identification. That was a point which the Government ought to have made by a reservation of the property, and not allow it to be carried off to be dispersed all over the Western territory, and through the Western and Southern States, and then for persons, on behalf of the Government, fourteen years afterwards, to come forward and say that it is impossible to identify this property. At this day it is a little too late to make that point.

Mr. DANIEL. Will the gentleman from Maryland allow me to make a single remark? The gentleman from New York [Mr. SACKETT] says that there was no identity of the negroes proved. There was no attempt to identify them; and why? Because it was seen, that if they could be identified, they could not be delivered. The Indians were determined not to go west unless the negroes went with them. There was no effort, therefore, to identify them, and it was useless to

do so.

Mr. EVANS. I have no doubt it was quite useless, and I thank the gentleman for the interruption. I think the case is sufficiently clear, and I now bid it farewell.

Mr. STUART next obtained the floor and said: Mr. Chairman, if this were an ordinary question, I should not detain the committee at all in regard to it. It is one which was raised when I had the honor of being a member of the Thirtieth Con gress, which I partially examined at that time, and which I have more thoroughly examined within the last few days. The object that I have in rising now is not so much to endeavor to enlighten this committee, as to place upon record the reasons which will control my own vote, and I shall be very much obliged to the committee, I confess, if they will give me ordinary attention. I have come to the conclusion that this is a case in which the Government is clearly liable, and I can state, I think, in a very few words, the reasons which have induced that conclusion in my mind. The views which I take, steer entirely clear of the difficulties which seem to obstruct the progress of other gen tlemen. The question whether these individuals were slaves or not, in fact, is one which it is not necessary to determine. The question whether the title to them, was perfect in the Seminoles or not, is not now necessary to be determined in the views which I now submit. The question of whether the Government of the United States mede a contract or not, is equally unimportant. But, sir, there are certain prominent, leading facts, clearly shown by the evidence in this case, about

interposition of this Government, through its army officers. They will further see that interposi tion was for reasons amply sufficient, and such as would have controlled the action of any gentle man here, had he been substituted for those army officers. They acted wisely and prudently; and they are entitled to the highest encomiums for their course by this Congress and the country, for relieving the country of this incubus which weighed it down-by relieving the country of what was otherwise not only an expensive, but a merciless war. I have no sickly sensibility upon this subject, especially such as was indicated the other day by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. JOHN W. HOWE.] And the history of this country is too full of those bloody pictures, showing the character of savage warfare; too many men, women, and children, have been butchered in cold blood, to make me entertain any particular fancy for Indians. That, too, is an evil with which we have had to contend, and let us dispose of it like

statesmen.

By Mr. WASHBURN: The remonstrance of C. G. Stearns and 51 others, of Brewer, Maine, against the renewal of the Woodworth patent.

Also, the memorial of John Marsh and others, children of John Marsh, for compensation for the services of their father in the revolutionary war.

By Mr. PEASLEE: The petition of Ichabod Titcomb, for remuneration on account of his father's services and losses in the revolutionary war.

By Mr. KUHNS: The resolutions of the State of Pennsylvania, in reference to the establishment of a navy-yard depot and dry dock on the lake frontier.

Also, the resolutions of the Legislature of the State of Pennsylvania, relative to Smith O'Brien and his associates

in exile.

Also, the petition of Miron R. Peak, for the adjustment and payment of his claim against the United States. By Mr. MOORE, of Louisiana: The petition of John F. Stephens and 20 others, praying that the mail may be car

siana.

Also, the petition of H. J. G. Battle and 31 others, citizens of Shreveport, Louisiana, asking that Red river be declared a mail route.

Mr. MEACHAM demanded the yeas and nays; which were ordered-33 rising in the affirm

ative.

Mr. M. then withdrew the motion.

Mr. ORR moved the usual resolution to close debate on the bill last under consideration in the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. CHANDLER moved that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. EWING moved that when the House adjourns it adjourn to meet on Monday next.

Mr. STANLY demanded the yeas and nays upon the motion, which were ordered; and, being taken, the result was-yeas 24, nays 95.

So the House refused to adjourn over. The SPEAKER. The question recurs upon the motion to adjourn.

Mr. POLK. Is it in order to move to reconsider the vote by which the House refused to adjourn until Monday?

A VOICE. How did you vote?

Mr. POLK. I voted no. I ask if my motion does not take precedence of the motion to adjourn?

The SPEAKER. The Chair is inclined to believe that it is competent for this House to fix the day to which it will adjourn, and that such a motion nas precedence over a motion to adjourn.

Mr. POLK. The reason why I make the motion

A VOICE. It is not debatable.

Mr. POLK. If I cannot state my reasons I feel, like other gentlemen, that this motion to adjourn will be read against me.

The SPEAKER. Debate is not in order? Does the gentleman msist upon his motion?

Mr. POLK. Not unless I can give my reasons. The question was then taken upon the motion to adjourn, and agreed to.

The House then adjourned till to-morrow, at twelve o'clock, m.

PETITIONS, &c.

The following petitions, memorials, &c., were presented under the rule, and referred to the appropriate committees: By Mr. BROWN, of Mississippi: The petition of Alfred E. Lewis and others, praying that an appropriation heretofore made may be applied without delay to the erection of a light house at the mouth of the Pascagoula river, in the State of Mississippi.

By Mr. THOMPSON, of Massachusetts: The petition of C. Cushing and sundry citizens of Newburyport, in the State of Massachusetts, asking for a further appropriation to the Collins line of steamers.

By Mr. MOREHEAD: Memorials from citizens of North Carolina and Virginia, praying for the establishment of a line of mail coaches from Salem, North Carolina, to Danville, Virginia.

Also, the memorial of A. M. Seary and others, citizens of Rockingham county, North Carolina, against the extension of the Woodworth patent.

By Mr. ALLISON: The petition of W. W. Chapman, Assistant Quartermaster, United States Army, praying indemnity for loss on a forged Treasury note, received in the discharge of his duty while with the army in Mexico.

By Mr. BRAGG: The petition of certain citizens of Mobile, praying for aid from the Government to the Collins

steamers.

By Mr. BOWNE: The memorial of G. B. Fisk, by his execu or, David B. Baylis, of Brooklyn, New York, in relation to Mexican indemnities.

By Mr. MOORE, of Pennsylvania: Three memorials of citizens of the county of Philadelphia, in favor of an extension of the Woodworth patent.

By Mr. FULLER, of Maine: The remonstrance of William E. Stayton aud 42 others, citizens of the city of Calais, Maine, against the renewal or further extension of the patent granted to Austin and Zebulon Parker for a reaction water wheel.

By Mr. GORMAN: Resolutions adopted by the inhabitants of the town of Laurel, in the county of Franklin, Indiana, recommending the passage of a law by Congress, providing for the grant of the right of preemption of lands in the Territory of Nebraska to Thomas Jefferson SutherJand, for the site of a military agricultural school, and for the loan of certain arms and military equipments of the United States for the use of such school.

By Mr. LOCKHART: The petition of Samuel Hall, president of the Evansville and Illinois Railroad, asking a grant of land to aid in the construction of said road from Evansville, on the Ohio river, to Indianapolis, Indiana.

Also, the petitions of D. M. Schene, William G. Ralston, F. A. Brown, William W. Colton, John H. DeBruler, William Brown Butler, Adrian Young, John McCoy, B. H. Criswell, John R. Land, John W. Gillum, Flemining H. Duncan, Dennis Pennington, and Dennis Pennington, jr., assistant marshals of the United States in taking the Sev enth Census, in the counties of Posey, Warrick, Spencer, Dubois, Vanderburgh, Gibson, Crawford, Orange, and Harrison, in the State of Indiana, asking additional compensation for their services.

On motion by Mr. SCUDDER, the petition of Pope & Morgan and others, owners of the ship Chandler Price, of New Bedford, Massachusetts, asking compensation for ransoming certain sailors from the inhabitants of King's Mill Islands, was taken from the files and referred to the Committee on Commerce.

By Mr. NEWTON: The petition of Mr. Williams and 100 other citizens of Palmyra and Paris, in Portage county, Ohio, praying for the repeal of the fugitive slave law.

Also, the petition of Harrison Austin, Rufus P. Rawney and 85 others, asking the establishment of an Agricultural Bureau.

Also, the petition of J. S. Green, Curtis Batch, and 187 others, asking to have the Wheeling and Belmont Bridge established a post road.

By Mr. PORTER: The petition of three German citizens of St. Charles county, Missouri, asking to be protected in any right they may have in a certain track of land in said county on which they now reside.

Also, the petition of Ignatius Lucas, Samuel James, and Charles Tilly, three of the watchmen in the Navy Department, for an increase of compensation.

By Mr. DIMMICK: The petition of Peter Baldy, J. A. Janies, and 250 others, citizens of Pennsylvania, praying Congress to declare the recognition of the national law providing one stat: to interfere in the internal affairs of another.

Also, the petition of James Manning and 40 others of Wayne county, Pennsylvania, remonstrating against the extension of the Parker patent for a reacting water wheel. Also, the petition of G. S. Waller and 14 others, citizens of Wayne county, Pennsylvania, remonstrating against the extension of the patent granted to Austin and Zebulon Parker.

Also, resolutions of the Legislature of Pennsylvania, against the establishment of a Mint in New York.

Also, the petiton of Noah Rodgers and 20 others, citizens of Wayne county, Pennsylvania, remonstrating against the extension of the Parker patent.

Also, the remonstrance of Earl Wheeler and 120 others,

citizens of Wayne county, Pennsylvania, against the extension of the Woodworth patent.

Also, the petition of George V. Wallace and 50 others, journeymen cigar makers in Wayne and Northampton coun ties, Pennsylvania, praying for the modification of the existing tariff on cigars.

Also, the petition of Reuben S. Bauch, praying addi tional compensation for taking the census.

Also, the petition of W. H. Landall and 140 others, enzens of Easton, Pennsylvania, praying for an extension of the Woodworth patent.

Also, the petition of Rodolphus Bingham and 70 others, citizens of Pike county, praying for the establishment of á post route from Milford, Pike county, to Salem, in Wave County, Pennsylvania, via Dowlingsville, Lord's Vailey, Bloomingville, Tafton, and Farmer's Hollow.

Also, the petition of James E. Eldred and 40 others, of a like import.

Also, the petition of Henry M. Labor and 70 others, of a like import.

Also, the petition of Josiah Scudder and 100 others, eit izens of Wayne county, praying for the establishment of a nail route from Equinunk to Preston, in Wayne county, Pennsylvania.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

SATURDAY, March 20, 1852. The House met at twelve o'clock, m. Prayer by the Rev. LITTLETON F. MORGAN. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. PROSPER M. WETMORE.

Mr. ORR. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to take up from the table a message of the President, in response to a resolution which I had the honor to offer some two months ago, in reference to the accounts of Prosper M. Wetmore. I desire to take it up in order to move, without debate, that it be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

The SPEAKER. Is the bill upon the Speaker's table?

Mr. ORR. It is not, but upon the table of the House.

There being no objection, the communication was taken up and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

RESOLUTIONS OF CALIFORNIA.

Mr. MARSHALL, of California, by unan mous consent, introduced two several joint resolotions of the Legislature of the State of California:

1st. Joint resolution in reference to the moneys collected in the ports of California previous to her admission into the Federal Union.

2d. Joint resolution relative to an increase of salary of the United States district judges in Cali

fornia.

The joint resolutions were severally read and ordered to be printed.

DEFICIENCY BILL.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Arkansas. I ask the unanimous consent of the House that the resolution closing debate upon the deficiency bill be so amend ed as to read, within one hour after it shall have been next taken up for consideration in the Com mittee of the Whole on the state of the Union."

Mr. STANLY. I thought that the House, by general consent, had agreed that the proposition of the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. JOHNSON] should be concurred in, but with the understanding that the gentleman from New York, [Mr. BROOKS.] upon the Committee of Ways and Means, should also have an hour. We are in a minority upon it, and it is but fair that we should be heard upon it.

Mr. JOHNSON. I had a conversation with that gentleman, [Mr. BROOKS,] and I told him that I would assent to it upon his making a re quest for it upon the floor of the House; and as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. STAN LY] now requests it, I assent to it, and ask the unanimous consent of the House, that the resolution closing debate be amended, so as to close debate in two hours instead of one hour, as I first requested.

Mr. HOUSTON. I shall not object to it, but I want to make a suggestion. The gentleman from Arkansas, [Mr. JOHNSON,] as I understand it, and as he has frankly told the House, intends to discuss some amendment, which he proposes to make to the bill when it comes up-an amend ment which, he and I agree, is important, and which I would really like to hear discussed. I have not the most remote objection to the gentle man from New York, [Mr. BROOKS,] as one of the members of the Committee of Ways and Means, making a speech; indeed, I prefer that he should do it. But then I should like that this

32D CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION.

agreement be so extended, that some other member of the Committee of Ways and Means might meet the arguments of the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. JOHNSON] in regard to the amendment which he may offer; for in my closing remarks I shall not have time to do so.

Mr. JOHNSON. I have no objection to that. My fear was that some one would object to such a proposition, if made. If it be not objected to, I will say three hours; but if objected to, I will adhere to the proposition for an extension of two

hours.

A VOICE. Two is enough. There being no objection, the proposition of Mr. JOHNSON, extending the debate two hours, was agreed to.

Mr. KING, of New York. I move that the rules of the House be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the

Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. SEYMOUR, of New York. I ask my colleague to withdraw his motion, until some communications upon the Speaker's table be taken up and referred. There are some of much importance, which should be referred, that the committees may take action upon them. I will further say that there is the Patent Office Report, which should be referred, that the proper committee may act upon it in reference to the question of printing it.

The SPEAKER. It can be done by unanimous consent, provided it be referred without debate.

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Illinois. I object to it. Mr. HASCALL, by unanimous consent, presented a petition from inhabitants of Wyoming County, New York, praying that the bounty land bill passed in 1850, be so amended as that all the heirs of a deceased beneficiary, under that act, be entitled to hold the land of their deceased ancestor, instead of the minor heirs only; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

The question was then taken upon the motion of Mr. KING, of New York, to go into committee, and it was agreed to.

The House accordingly resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. VENABLE in the chair.)

DEFICIENCY BILL.

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 1852.

the bureau which have been stricken out altogether, and more than two thirds of the amount have been either stricken out or reduced by the Committee of Ways and Means. Well, the bureau has got into a very strange condition-they have come to a very strange pass, when they offer an estimate under their own responsibility, and for which they are responsible to a higher department, as well as to the people of the United States, of more than tripple the sum that is necessary for the service of the Government. If it be true, sir, that those estimates which have been made were necessary to the performance of the service of the country, or to comply with the just obligations of the United States, l'imagine that this House would unanimously say that those estimates ought to be adopted.

The grounds upon which those estimates have been adopted, sir, and the facts and laws relating to them, I will attempt, in as condensed a method, and in as brief time, as possible, to explain to the House, and I do not think it probable that I shall consume the hour to which I am entitled in ma-king this explanation. If, sir, it is found, however, that those estimates which have been made are not necessary to the service of the country, nor are necessary to the proper discharge of the obligations of this Government, then, sir, there is a degree of censure which must be thrown upon those who have furnished them to this House, which I am, sir, at a loss to characterize.

There is a species of general objection which exists, I believe, upon the part of the Committee of Ways and Means to a number of the items in this bill, so far as it relates to Indian affairs. Sir, in speaking of the deficiency bill, I hope I may be clearly understood as speaking of that part of it exclusively relating to Indian affairs. There is a species of general objection which is, that among the items objected to here, there are none to be found as coming properly within the character of a deficiency. I am not good at definition, but I think the substance of the definition of a deficiency, as applicable to this bill, would be a case where there has been an amount already appropriated for a given object, and there has resulted upon an effort to execute that object, a necessity for further appropriation. A deficiency bill, from its title, is a supplemental bill altogether, and is instituted to supply wants, resulting from precedent inadequate provision. But if this deficiency bill is to be confined exclusively to this class of cases, and none other, then, upon examination into this bill, it will

Mr. JOHNSON. I desire, sir, to explain to this House in a plain manner—and I do not know that I could do so in any other manner if I desired it-some of the features of the deficiency bill now before this committee for consideration. I shall only touch that portion of the bill which relates to the Indian service. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, finding that a large portion of their estimates had been rejected by the Committee of Ways and Means, called the attention of the Committee on Indians Affairs to the fact, and requested that they would look into it and see if they approved of the estimates of that bureau; and if so, to offer the rejected items to the House as amendments to the bill. That committee have, several times, had the various items, which have been rejected, under consideration.

serted five items which are a legitimate portion of such a bill.

Then, sir, there originates, from the nature of our legislation, and the condition of business in this House, an absolute necessity that this House should act upon the estimates offered, and should couple with the deficiency bill many items, whether they come strictly within the class of deficiency or not. I say that there exists an absolute necessity that these estimates should be acted upon in this bill, if they are to be acted upon at all, and I will explain to you the reason why. It is this, sir: This deficiency bill is here presented-it is before the House, based upon the estimates already made to be provided for as deficiency, and whilst they are rejected, the deficiency bill is permitted to lie by for months, and is not acted upon at all, until the estimates for the regular expenditures in the Indian service have been furnished to this House, and the bill for regular service is actually upon the table and reported for the use of the House.

Mr. HOUSTON. I am sure my friend wants

Mr. JOHNSON. Most certainly I do.

Mr. HOUSTON. The deficiency was not reported. The deficiency had not reached the Ways and Means Committee when the regular Indian appropriation bill was reported to the House. We did not know of it at all.

Mr. JOHNSON. Without looking at that, and admitting the correctness of what the gentleman says, which I do, I say before-hand, if these esti

NEW SERIES.....No. 51.

mates here are not allowed in this bill, they cannot, and will not, come in for appropriation this year, in the regular bill, as the committee allege would be proper, if proper at all, because the regular bill is already reported to the House; and no Committee of Ways and Means has ever become famous for offering amendments to their own bills after reporting them, and particularly no committee which is disposed to no particular extravagance, and disposed to force the public expenditure into as narrow a compass as it is possible to do. So these items recommended for this bill, though they be just and right, cannot come in at all; they will be lost; and though they be obligations of the Government, obligations liquidated and acknowledged, still they must go by for another year. If they be essential to the public service, and if we are compelled to submit to this view, they must be passed by altogether, unless the Committee of Ways and Means can be induced to adopt them as amendments, and throw them into the bill, which has been reported to the House and referred, although not yet considered. With these preliminary remarks, I will proceed to consider the rejected estimates in de

tail.

"For payment to the Seneca Indians of New York, for moneys wrongfully withholden from them by an agent appointed by the Government for the management of their affairs, as per report of Thomas B. Stoddard, Esq., commissioner, selected by the Secretary of War to make the requisite investigation, pursuant to the direction contained in the 4th section of the act of 27th June, 1846, making ap

propriations for the Indian Department."

That, sir, is an item of $28,505. I will state to the House in general terms the history of this matter. From time-I was about to say immemorial-from a very distant period back, we had agents among this tribe; and it has been always the case, that those agents had been in the habit of receiving the money of those Indians, and doing so whether due to them by this Government or the State of New York, or by banks, or by individuals. They have been in the habit of receiving such moneys, and of paying out, applying, or investing them, in any manner which the commissioner, or the tribe, or owner should direct. This method of conducting their affairs had continued for many years, and is explained in the copy of a letter which I have here; until an agent of the name of Stryker was appointed, and that agent, during a period of some three years, robbed them of money amounting to $28,000, and some odd hundreds. This occurred in 1837, 1838, and 1839. Now, the question is, what position does the United States occupy in reference to this loss? Those who oppose the paying of this amount to those Indians, oppose an obligation absolutely admitted by the Government of the United States. Those who oppose it say that the United States have paid these Indians all they owe them, and paid them through their agent-that this $28,000 was money due these Indians from private individuals, and paid into the hands of their agents, and that the United States had nothing to do with the transaction. That is the statement, sir.

Now, sir, if the United States acted as the trustee of these Indians, and received that money, and then, as trustee, failed to account to them for the money, the Government is compelled, not only by equity and justice, but by their own precedents in numberless cases, to pay to these Indians any losses they may have sustained by confiding to this Government, through her agent, their means in the manner which has been specified, and which will be clearly proved by the papers, if anybody will examine them. The only question seems to me to be this; and I shall not spend much time in this case, nor dwell upon it any longer than is necessary to take up those points where the difficulties exist, and leave the rest to any one who may speak after me, in the event they may wish to say something about it. Well, sir, besides it appearing that it was the habit of that tribe of Indians to confide and pay over all their money into the