It was to make use of one class of citizens to bring another to a sense of justice and a proper submission to the law. I approve its wisdom. An insurrection would be much more easily quelled by the array of neighbors and fellowized army, whose only influence would be the employment of force. An overwhelming force might be employed in the provoke collision, and end in blood. Whatever might be first case, whilst the other might only be strong enough to the views of our ancestors, it is certain that until 1807 the militia was the only force put at the disposal of the President to suppress insurrection, &c.

"The act of 1807 is in these words: "That in cases of in'surrection or obstruction to the laws either of the United 'States or of any individual State or Territory, where it is 'lawful for the President of the United States to call forth 'the militia for suppressing such insurrection or causing the 'laws to be duly executed, it shall be lawful for him to em

mode of using the fugitive slave bill. But when the bill was brought up under the suggestion of the honorable gentleman, and with the understanding that his Northern friends and allies would sup-citizens, than by the employment of a trained and organport it, how many of them voted for it? The two gentlemen from lowa [Messrs. DODGE and JONES] rored for the bill, and the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania, no longer a member of this body, [Mr. STURGEON,] voted for the bill. The bonorable gentleman from New York, [Mr. DICKNON,] no longer here, would have voted for it, and explained at the time the reasons why he cid not, having paired off with his colleague. There were but three Northern Senators who voted for it. Let the country understand now, for the first time, if it never has been understood before, why honorable gentlemen from the North, who are now so vehement upon the subject of these compromises, did not vote on that bill, ether for or against it. When the compromise measures have swum to the shore, there are some willing to stretch out the hand of aid, but were anwilling to run the hazard of the flood when it was uncertain as to the fate of the bill referred to. Did they avoid that vote? or were they absent by accident when the vote was taken? Some of those gentlemen, I know, gave their moral support to the bil; but I state the fact, that it was not until the

had gone to the country, and obtained its favorable judgment, as they suppose, that some gentlemen became its open advocates. So much for that.

Now for another complaint and charge, which the honorable Senator has made, which may apply to myself, that is, denying the President power to enforce the law. I beg to bring to the attention of the Senate the report which I submitted in relation to the President's message, calling for additional legislation to enable him to enforce the fugitive slave law.

Mr. FOOTE, of Mississippi. I thought that I was distinctly understood by the whole Senate in stating that I had no allusion to the honorable Senstor in connection with this matter. I recollected Es report, and I have had occasion to read it in my own State in language of commendation. He Expresses some opinions in the report in which I do not entirely concur. But I was exceedingly struck with a portion of the language used in the report, expressing confidence in the disposition of the Executive to perform his duty faithfully in executing the powers vested in him on this important subject."

Mr. BUTLER. I wish to have the report read, not so much for any vindication of myself as that the Senate may understand my views.

The Secretary read the report, as follows:

"In submitting my views on the message of the President referred to the Judiciary Committee, it is not my purpose to express my dissent from the general and unqualified conclusion of the majority of the committee, to wit: that it is accessary at this time, by further legislation, to give the President power over the militia and military forces of the Government, for the purpose of suppressing insurrections and combinations to obstruct the execution of the laws.

* There are some subjects of the message presented to the consideration of Congress, and which address themselves perially to the consideration of the committee, upon which I feel it a duty to express an opinion, lest by silence there might be a tacit recognition of one of the assumptions and an approbation of some of the recommendations of the Dessage.

"Previously to the act of 1807, it seems to have been the imphed understanding of all the departments of the Government that the President was confined to the militia, to suppress insurrections against the State government and to suppress combinations against the laws of the United States.'

The act of 1795 indicates the occasions and prescribes the manner in which the militia shall be called out and employed. The President cannot order out the militia to suppress insurrection against the State government, without being called on to do so by the legislative or executive authority of the State concerned.

"To suppress combinations against the laws of the United States, it is the duty of the President to judge of the occasion for calling out the militia. On all occasions for calling cut and employing the militia, it was made the duty, by the act referred to, to issue his proclamation as a previous warning to the employment of force.

"This provision was founded in usage, and has had the sanction of time, trial, and experience. It is but the warning voice of a forbearing Government. There might be some occasions when the interval between such warning and the actual employment of force might be of some duraBon. Other occasions might be such as to require the force to follow in quick succession to the warning of a proclamation. The order to call out the militia and the proclamation might emanate at the same time.

"It seems to have been in contemplation by the act of 1795 to put at the disposal of the President a quasi military posse comitatus of citizen soldiers, to maintain the dominion of the laws, in which they had the interest of citizens.

ploy for the same purpose such part of the land and naval 'force as shall be necessary, having first observed all the 'prerequisites of the law in that respect.'

So far as it regards the employment of the army and naval force, the President maintains that he is subject to no prerequisites of the act referred to, but that they are absolutely at his command for the purposes indicated.

"The words of the President are: Congress, not probably adverting to the difference between the militia and the 'regular army by the act of March 3, 1807, authorized the 'President to use the land and naval forces of the United 'States for the same purposes for which he might call forth 'the militia, and subject to the same proclamation. But the power of the President under the Constitution as com'mander of the army and navy is general, and his duty to 'see the laws executed is general and positive; and the act of 1807 ought not to be construed as evincing any disposi'tion in Congress to limit or restrain any of his constitu'tional authority.'

"The import of which is, that the President may use the Army and Navy as he may think proper under the plenitude of his constitutional authority, and that he is not constrained by the act of 1807, nor can he be restrained by any act of Congress. Being ex officio commander, he can use the Army in suppressing insurrections in a manner different from that in which he is required to use the militia.

"For the specific and sometimes delicate purposes indicated, I think Congress has the direction of the President. When actually in command for repelling invasion or for any other purpose, he must exercise his own judgment under his constitutional discretion. In one sentence I deny that the President has a right to employ the Army and Navy for suppressing insurrection, &c., without observing the same prerequisites prescribed for him in calling out the militia for the same purpose.

"His suggestion in his message is, that he shall have a right to employ the militia, as he contends he has a right under the Constitution to employ the regular military force -that is, without notice of a proclamation. I do not think he has the right to call out the military force of the Government without observing the prerequisites of the act of 1795, and I am unwilling to give him such power in calling out the militia. I would regard it as a fearfully momentous occasion to see the Army called out to shoot down insurgents without notice or proclamation.

"The truth is, it must be regarded as a significant omen of the times to be told that a marshal, under his plenary power to call out the posse comitatus, cannot execute constitutional laws without resort to force, and that to be executed with the promptness of executive will.

"Justice and the occasion require me to say, that I do not believe the power contended for would be abused by the present Executive. The precedent for the direction of a mild and just President may be the rod of power for a military despot. A. P. BUTLER.

"FEBRUARY 28, 1851."

Mr. BUTLER. Mr. President, this report did not materially differ from the report of the majority. I have seen it adverted to by the newspapers, and generally, I think, the report has been approved. If I had been influenced by feelings of sectional resentment, I might have been tempted to yield to the President's demands. The import of his message was, that he should be allowed not only to use the regular army, without proclamation, in putting down insurrections and bodies of men too formidable to be overcome by the ordinary posse comitatus of the country, but he required that there should be an armed militia at the disposal of his marshals, with bayonets and balls, who should put down those formidable bodies of men, without warning them-without having the riot act read to them at all. I did not agree to any such suggestion. I recollect that under the influence of the highly eloquent appeal which was made by the honorable Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. CLAY,] not now in his seat, this body was prepared almost for any law, and to adopt almost any suggestion. I recollected, however, that what might be urged as the precedent of to-day, might be the prescription of to-morrow, and the same principles which would prevail if his recommendation had been assented to in this case, might be abused by any arbitrary tyrant.

I made no allusion to the precedent as a means to overcome the liberties and institutions of the country. I say now, that if the fugitive slave law is to be enforced by the bayonet-by an armed posse comitatus, put at the disposal of the Executive-it is an evidence that it is a law which will not be enforced at all. I believe that it will

not-I believe that it has not been enforced. And in this Republic, when it is necessary that the bayonet should be used instead of voluntary submission to the dominion of the law by the citizens themselves, or by the ordinary force which can be evoked on the occasion to carry it into effect, it is a significant omen, and indicative of the times. Why, I read of these riots and these combinations being denounced as treason. I did not believe, at the time, that they would be construed so as to amount to treason against the United States. Whatever might be their real character, such would not be their complexion in the courts. The character of such meetings will depend more on the testimony of witnesses than the truth of facts, and no authority can overcome such influences. We have a great many rhetorical declamations in this Senate; and if the advertisements which go out from here were to indicate anything like the truth, there would be very little difficulty in carrying out the provisions of the Constitution. But the Constitution is a dead letter. United States courts have no jurisdiction over the subject, for it is not regarded as treason. It is referred to the State courts. What will be the result? The State courts take jurisdiction of this resistance of the fugitive slave law as of an ordinary riot or murder. Who are to decide upon the crime? A jury composed, perhaps, of those who sympathize with the person charged. Who is to award the punishment? The judge who, perhaps, entertains the same feelings, and indulges in the same sympathies. Or, if a tribuInal could be found-which I never expect to see— stern enough, in defiance of public opinion, to do justice, under the sanction of an oath, to the obligations of the Constitution, the sentence would be remitted by the Executive of almost any one of the non-slaveholding States.

Gentlemen preach to me eternally that this fugitive slave law will be executed, when every newspaper brings a refutation of the assertion. Have we not arrived at an eventful period in the history of the country? When I see that, by combinations, by contrivances, by legislative enactments, one of the solemn articles of the Constitution-for the fugitive slave law is nothing but an affirmation and recognition of the Constitution-is not only violated, but even put under the ban of the pulpit, let the gentleman not tell me that we are to put bayonets at the disposal of an Executive to enforce any such law. Let the gentleman not lay that flattering unction to his soul. I know that the people may be addressed, and that parties may make excuses and patched-up platforms, for the purpose of concealing the truth from the public mind; but it cannot be done.

Mr. FOOTE, of Mississippi. Lest I should have misunderstood the gentleman, I will ask him whether we are to understand him as just now announcing the opinion, that armed opposition on the part of citizens of a country, for the purpose of arresting the execution of the fugitive slave law, would not amount to treason?

Mr. BUTLER. I said no such thing. I know the difference between riot and treason. It would be treason to levy war against the United States, if there had been a concerted movement of a public kind to defeat the execution of a law, or of the Constitution, it would amount to treason. But these riots which break out suddenly for a private end-the release of a fugitive slave from his master-would be construed to amount to mere riot, and would not be held to be treason. And I said, too, that if a judge would award proper punishment, the Governor of the State would remit it. Mr. BRODHEAD. Not in Pennsylvania. Mr. BUTLER. I have a right to appeal to the Senate upon another subject in connection with this. The Senator from Mississippi vehemently urges the necessity of having statutory or legislative enactments for the ratification of this compromise. He may take either one of the horns of the dilemma. The gentleman was either opposed to some of the points of the compromise when they were under consideration, or he was in favor of them. I do not care which he takes. If he says he was opposed to some one of the propositions involved in the compromise, he must allow me to take his authority; and if, on that occasion, he denounced and was opposed to it, I have a right at least to expect from him some indulgence toward those who agreed with him on that occasion. | If, on the contrary, the gentleman was in favor of

structions to the Constitution, it will not be amended, and the gentleman is emphatically a majority man. I did not say that the gentleman would agree to what he regarded as a palpable violation of the Constitution, but I said the tendency of this mode of treating the Constitution was to have these excrescences in the form of compromises to give it a validity which it would not otherwise fare. I think we ought to meet the crisis and rovide a remedy.

The gentleman says that I have proposed no amendment. True, I have proposed none, but there are amendments which I will vote for. When the Federal Constitution was under consideration in Philadelphia, it was proposed that no measure fecting the regulation of commerce, or the disbursement of the public money, should pass withgut a vote of two thirds; and I tell the gentleman that I would now vote for such a provision. If an amendment was proposed to afford new guarantees to the slaveholding interest, requiring Congress to give governments to Territories, without restricon as to slavery, I should vote for it. If I were to consult the security of this Government, I would vote for amendments that would give enforceable guarantees to the minority, and not leave the majority to fritter it away by construction, or deform it by compromises. There are many salutary amendments that might be proposed.

In connection with this subject and I say it to the Senator from Mississippi, more in sorrow Lan in anger,—I wish he had not thought proper to allude, as he did, with rather a sneer, to the book of my late distinguished colleague, and to deBounce the proposition contained in that book in 8 way which evidently showed that it was under the ban of his censure. I was not prepared for that. I have not read Mr. Calhoun's book. His memory is not committed to me, neither are the works of his great intellect committed to me. I would not be able to take care of them; but the least we could have expected of those who often agreed with and admired that distinguished man was, that we should not assail him before the world, and the Parliament of the nation, where the gentleman himself had so many, and seeming kindly, associations with him.

Mr. FOOTE. The gentleman does not charge me with ever having agreed with Mr. Calhoun that the Constitution should be amended, so as to give additional constitutional guarantees to the South? I protested against that during his life. Mr. BUTLER. I did not say that.

Mr. FOOTE. What did the gentleman say? Mr. BUTLER. I said that the gentleman frequently agreed with, and was a great admirer of, Mr. Calhoun.

Mr. FOOTE, (in his seat.) On some questions I did agree with him, but on most I did not.

The PRESIDENT. The conversation must not go on in that way. The Senator is always at Liberty to make an explanation, with the consent of the gentleman having the floor, but he is not at liberty to sit in his chair to make comments while the speaker is going on.

Mr. FOOTE. I understand my duty as well as the Chair can inform me.

own sphere, and that no law should be passed without the concurrence of both. I am very sure that such a proposition as that, if ingrafted on the Constitution, might give it a better operation than it now has under the combination of interest and numbers. I do not undertake to be the expounder of Mr. Calhoun's views, nor do I say that I am prepared to adopt them. I am sure the gentleman has not done justice to them. I do not enter into the views of Mr. Calhoun; for he never mentioned the subject to me in his lifetime, and I have not yet had an opportunity, and I regret it, to read his book. I only noticed the remark of the gentleman, in passing, with a view to show that in some respects his interpretation of the book might not be the interpretation of everybody. There are other minds besides his to look at the subject; and when a great work of the kind is to be measured, it must be measured by an enlightened public opinion after full discussion upon the subject.

Sir, I have touched upon these things with regret. The Senator from Mississippi is in favor of the compromise; and he denounces, in no measured terms, all those opposed to it; not that the gentleman seems to be governed by unkind feelings to many embraced in the sweep of his cen

sure.

Mr. FOOTE. I have here, elsewhere, and everywhere, wherever I have attempted to speak of the struggle which occurred in the two Houses of Congress, in reference to the questions contained in the plan of compromise, said, uniformly and emphatically, that, so far as the conduct of Senators and Representatives was concerned in that struggle, I had no censures whatever to bestow; nor that I wished them to be censured in any shape or form by any patriotic man in the country. The President of this body knows what my views on this subject were, for we have talked together. All that I have said was, that now, when these measures have become the law of the land; now that the great experiment of compromise was in course of trial, I did conceive that it was the duty of all parties, North and South, to make a fair experiment of those measures, and not to engage in violent agitations against any feature of them. I have simply condemned all attempts at the North, or at the South, at this time, to break up the compromise. But I have never undertaken to condemn any man, or set of men, for decent, zealous, patriotic opposition to any of the measures of adjustment which they themselves disapproved at the time. This is, and always has been, my attitude on that subject.

Mr. BUTLER. That may be; but the gentleman knows as well as any one here, that no one had greater influence-perhaps I may say that he had uncommon influence-in getting up the Southern Address; he was the prime mover of it. And I think the gentleman must, to some extent, assume the responsibility of the Nashville Convention. I say that, after the position which that gentleman has occupied, justice, if not generosity, requires that he should at least look to the motives, which I hope he will, of other persons who are disposed to stand up to the propositions which they avowed at the time in the Southern Address. I supposed it was a matter of historical interest to the gentleman. And now I will say here, for the first time, what I have heretofore said to my friends, that the Nashville Convention was premature. My friends know that this was my opinion. If there is one gentleman in this hall who has contributed fuel to the fires of Southern resistance and indignation, the honorable Senator has fed them as freely as any other. I am not now making any accusations against him for mere change of opinion and position. I have said nothing at course, when he changes it; but when the Senator from Mississippi thought proper to speak of South Carolina, and allude to her internal contests, the

high in spirit, as pure in motive, and would be as brave in action, as any men who ever adorned the pages of history. I differed from friends in South Carolina; but here, I cannot allow that difference to prevent my doing them justice, if they required it at my hands.

Mr. FOOTE, of Mississippi. If the honorable gentleman had read my speech as reported, or if he distinctly recollected what I said the other day, he would certainly find himself effectually relieved from the necessity of making the remarks which he has just made. I stated distinctly that I entertained a high respect for the people of the State of South Carolina. I expressed the high gratification which I felt, that the real people of South Carolina had come nobly to the rescue of the honor of the State in the contest lately in progress there between them and certain demagogues. I hoped that the people there, under the lead of the honorable gentleman and such as he, would vanquish the demagogues in that struggle. That is what I said. I did not denounce the Legislature of South Carolina. I did not denounce any organized body of men there, Legislature or Convention. If I have any particular sentiments unfavorable to such bodies, I withheld them; but I did denounce, and I shall continue to denounce, any man or set of men in South Carolina, who dared to urge the people of that State to attack the forts of the United States within her limits-to make war upon the General Government-and who dared to say, perverting the language of the immortal Henry, "I say we must fight.' I did denounce such persons, and

not those who were inclined to arm the State for her own defence against the General Government, in the event of an unjust attack neither menaced nor expected. I did denounce persons who, as I am prepared to prove by their speeches, attempted, without any aggression on the part of the General Government, to incite the people of South Carolina to an immediate attack upon the Government. These are the men that I denounced, and I am responsible here and elsewhere, for the strongest language used in decrial of them. I shall always decry them.

Mr. BUTLER. If I had not been interrupted I should have gone on and stated, perhaps, what the gentleman could not have taken exception to, so far as I am concerned. I have not said anything in a personal point of view, but I must do my duty to others.

Mr. FOOTE. If the gentleman chooses to defend such men, he can do it.

Mr. BUTLER. South Carolina, in her first resolutions of 1848, proposed nothing but coöperation with the other States. In 1849, in the mildest terms, she proposed the same thing. In 1850--I say it upon my responsibility in this Chamber-she called her convention in reference to a course projected and intimated by the State of Mississippi. I cannot be mistaken in that. Is it just that any reproach should attach to her from a representative of Mississippi?

There were many things well calculated to aggravate the popular excitement and indignation at the course of the General Government. Whilst the people were deliberating on their condition, and the course the State should pursue, the Administration showed both a want of wisdom and decency. For what purpose some troops were sent to the forts in Charleston is not distinctly understood. The effect was to arm all parties with a determination to resent the insulting demonstration; and it was difficult for her public men to restrain excitement and control consequences. That movement has left an abiding impression on the public mind. There was not the slightest occasion for troops, and if one drop of blood had been shed, there would have been a civil war that would have put the questions now in debate under the arbitrament of the sword. The gentleman might have found it a difficult task to have found enough constables to hang the traitors. He would have been consumed in his own State if he had made

very well that there were two Consuls in Rome, with a Tribune to control them. By a partition of power, and such control of it by the tribunitial veto on occasion, the Roman Republic moved on with success and energy. I presume that Mr. Calhoun might very well have entertained the idea that two Presidents might be very well: one perhaps having jurisdiction of foreign and the other of domestic affairs, or some such partition of duties. I presume he intended that each should be independent in his

could require of him, was to forbear unkind allusions to her course, and especially to abstain from availing of his own change of doctrine and position to give point to those allusions. The mass of those who, in South Carolina, were for putting her in advance of what I regarded the position she should occupy, are persons whose motives and designs would place them before the tribunal of history in a point of view far above reach of the gentleman's arrow. They are as

issue would have been far above party strife or rhetorical display.

I cannot go further into this subject, except to express my opinion that injustice has been done to those of South Carolina who have attempted to conform to the suggestions of Mississippi; not altogether under the counsels of the honorable Senator, but yielding very much to influence which his counsels and those of others had. Therefore

I think such an allusion as he made was entirely unnecessary.

Mr. FOOTE, of Mississippi. I will not now ask the gentleman to allow me to explain, because I have interrupted him so often. Yet, if it would make no difference to him, I would go on now to explain the attitude of the State of Mississippi. Mr. BUTLER. The gentleman is at liberty to proceed.

Mr. FOOTE. I shall explain more fully hereafter. I wish now simply to protest against what the gentleman has said in regard to the course and attitude of the State of Mississippi. It is true I signed the Southern Address; and I now approve every word contained therein. It is true, I did forward a letter from Mr. Calhoun to my own State which proposed the holding of the Nashville Convention, and which marked out to some extent the then expected modus operandi of that body. It is true, also, as I have heretofore asserted, that not one single word is contained in that Southern Address or in Mr. Calhoun's letter which recommends secession, or intimates that there should be any amendment to the Constitution. The State of Mississippi was willing to meet, in a proper manner and a truly patriotic spirit, the citizens of the rest of the slaveholding States of this Union in the Nashville Convention, for the purpose of fraternal consultation, in regard to the means most proper to be adopted for guarding against certain dangers with which we were then menaced-one of which was the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia; another of which was the attempt to impose the Wilmot proviso. I will not reiterate all the measures with which we had been then menaced for some years, and to which the Southern Address, in the most solemn manner, called the attention of the South; to guard against which the State of Mississippi, under advice received from South Carolina through me, in the manner I have described, was willing to send delegates to a Southern Convention. I will add, though, that it was doubtless one of our objects in this movement, to secure our long-withheld right to an efficient congressional enactment providing for the recapture and restoration of fugitives from service. But I reiterate, that we did not commit ourselves to secession, nor did we insist on amending the Federal Constitution.

I will say further to the honorable gentleman, that the State of Mississippi, as she was justified in doing, came to the conclusion, gravely and deliberately-and I believe all dispassionate men will admit that she acted wisely in coming to that conclusion that the plan of compromise effectually guarded against every single danger with which the South had been antecedently menaced, and secured to her the fugitive slave law, to which she was entitled by the Constitution, in addition, together with certain other incidental advantages, some of which I endeavored to point out the other day. Now if, in the opinion of the State of Mississippi, the compromise has operated in a manner so comprehensively beneficial, how can it be contended that the State of South Carolina, when she undertook, without just reason, to manifest dissatisfaction with the acts of adjustment, and proposed a Southern Congress for the purpose of arraying the Southern States against them, was led into that attitude by the State of Mississippi? I have heard that said before, and I have denied it. Had the wise monitions of the parent Convention of Mississippi been adopted by the Nashville Convention, the South would have had no further trouble. I believe this advice would have been adopted and acted upon, but for certain intriguing politicians, who attempted, in my opinion, in bad faith-of which I shall give the proofs hereafter-to wield the machinery of the National Convention, gotten up for very different purposes, for the overthrow of the Union; a very ingenious plan having been adopted, under the advice of certain persons who have openly avowed themselves subsequently to have been secret disunionists in heart and design at that time, in demanding terms of settlement so extravagant and unreasonable as to make all hope of their ultimate adoption utterly absurd.

One of the leaders of South Carolina, a gentleman who is reputed to be the author of the Nashville Address, declared, as I well recollect, in a speech delivered in Charleston, immediately after his return from the Nashville Convention, that he had entertained no expectation when the celebrated ||

demand of 36° 30' was made on the part of the Convention, that it would be acceded to; but that he, for many years past, had been tired of the Union and anxious to break it up, and expected, through the agency of the Nashville Convention, and by demanding terms of adjustment which would not be acceded to by Congress and the Northern States, to accomplish his long-cherished object. This noted avowal, I say, was made in Charleston after the session of the Convention had drawn to a close; but that gentleman cannot deny that he had been quite particular in not declaring such views and objects in the Nashville Convention. All will perceive from this statement that the honorable Senator [Mr. BUTLER] has entirely misunderstood the true position of the State of Mississippi, and I hope not hereafter to hear her accused of being instigated by any portion of the extravagant movements of certain factionists in South Carolina.

Mr. BUTLER. I have only said that South Carolina, to some extent, shaped her course according to the plan marked out by the State of Mississippi. The Senator has made allusious which cannot be mistaken. I must, therefore, in justice to my colleague, yield the floor, to allow him an opportunity of speaking, although there is much more which I would have said, but for the frequent interruptions with which the course of my remarks has been broken in upon, and the allusions to my colleague which it is but justice he should have an opportunity to notice.

Mr. RHETT next addressed the Senate until past the usual hour of adjournment, when, without finishing, he yielded the floor, and the Senate adjourned.

Mr. BAYLY, of Virginia, asked the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a resolution calling upon the President for information.

Mr. ROBINSON. Is it in order now, Mr. Speaker, to move a suspension of the rules, to consider the resolution from the Senate?

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Virginia has the floor.

Mr. BAYLY. I will say to the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. ROBINSON,] that I have no intention of being in the way of the resolution concerning Kossuth. My resolution is simply one asking important information from the President; and to which I presume there will be no objection.

IMPRISONMENT OF MR. THRASHER. reported to the House, as follows: There being no objection, the resolution was

Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested, so far as in his judgment may be compatible with the public interest, to communicate to the House any information in possession of the Executive respecting the imprisonment, trial, and sentence of John S. Thrasher, in the Island of Cuba, and to his right to claim the protection of the Government, as a native-born citizen of the United States.

The question was then put, and the resolution was adopted.

WELCOME TO LOUIS KOSSUTH.

Mr. ROBINSON. I now move a suspension of the rules, for the purpose of taking up the resolution of welcome to Kossuth. I shall also ask that it be put upon its passage.

The question was then taken, and the rules were suspended.

The resolution was then read the first and second times by its title.

Mr. ROBINSON. I now move that the resolution be put upon its passage; and upon that motion I ask the previous question.

Cries of "Read the resolution."
The resolution was read, as follows:

A Joint Resolution of welcome to Louis Kossuth. Resolved, That Congress, in the name and behalf of the people of the United States, give to Louis Kossuth a cordial welcome to the capital and the country; and that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to him by the President of the United States.

The question now being upon ordering the resolution to a third reading,

Mr. ROBINSON called for the previous question.

Cries of "That's right!" "Let's have the previous question!"

The previous question was then seconded, and the main question ordered; and being put, was carried in the affirmative.

The resolution was then read a third time.

The question now being, "Shall the resolution pass?"

Mr. RICHARDSON moved the previous question, which was seconded, and the main qustion was ordered to be put.

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio, asked the yeas and nays on the passage of the resolution; which were ordered; and being taken, were-yeas 181, nays 16; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Aiken, Charles Allen, Willis Allen, Allison, Andrews, John Appleton, William Appleton, Babcock, Bartlett, Barrere, David J. Bailey, Thomas H. Bayly, Beale, Bell, Bennett, Bibighaus, Bocock, Bowne, John H. Boyd, Breckenridge, Brenton, Briggs, Brooks, Buell, Burrows, Busby, Joseph Cable, Lewis D. Campbell, Thompson Campbell, Cartter, Caskie, Chandler, Chapman, Chastain, Clark, Cleveland, Clingman, Cobb, Conger, Cullom, Curtis, Daniel, Geo. T. Davis, J. G. Davis, Dawson, Dimmick, Disney, Dockery, Doty, Dunham, Durkee, Eastman, Edmundson, Edgerton, Evans, Faulkner, Ficklin, Fitch, Florence, Fowler, Freeman, Henry M. Fuller, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Gamble, Gaylord, Gentry, Giddings, Goodenow, Gorman, Grey, Grow, Hall, Hamilton, Hammond, Harper, Sampson W. Harris, Hart, Haws, Hascall, Haven, Hebard, Hendricks, Henn, Hibbard, Hillyer, Horsford, Houston, Howard, John W. Howe, Thomas M. Howe, Hunter, Ingersoll, Ives, Jackson, John Johnson, Daniel T. Jones, J. Glancy Jones, Geo. G. King, Preston King, Kuhns, Kurtz, Landry, Letcher, Lockhart, Mace, Mann, Edward C. Marshall, Humphrey Marshall, McCorkle, McDonald, McLanahan, McMullin, McNair, McQueen, Meacham, Meade, Miller, Miner, Molony, Henry D. Moore, John Moore, Morrison, Murphy, Murray, Nabers, Newton, Olds, Outlaw, Andrew Parker, Samuel W. Parker, Peaslee, Penn, Penniman, Perkins, Phelps, Porter, Price, Rantoul, Richardson, Robbins, Robie, Robinson, Ross, Sackett, Schermerhorn, Schoonmaker, Scudder, David L. Seymour, Origen S. Seymour, Skelton, Smart, Smith, Snow, Benjamin Stanton, Frederick P. Stanton, Richard H. Stanton, Abr'm P. Stevens, Stone, St. Martin, Strother, Stuart, Sutherland, Sweetser, Taylor, Benjamin Thompson, Geo. W. Thompson, Thurston, Townshend, Tuck, Wallace, Walsh, Ward, Washburn, Watkins, Welch, Wells, Addison White, Alexander White, Wilcox, Wildrick, and Yates-181.

NAYS-Messrs. Abercrombie, Averett, Bragg, Albert G. Brown, Caldwell, Isham G. Harris, Holladay, James Johnson, George W. Jones, Martin, Morehead, Savage, Scurry, Alexander H. Stephens, Williams, and Woodward-16. So the resolution passed.

Mr. McMULLIN, when his name was called, said he should vote for the resolution, though with great reluctance. [Great laughter.]

Mr. ROBINSON moved to reconsider the vote just taken, and to lay that motion on the table; which latter motion was agreed to.

The question was then taken upon the title of the resolution; and it was agreed to.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Speaker

Mr. STANTON, of Tennessee. I rise to a question of privilege.

Mr. SMITH. I rose for the same purpose. I move to reconsider the vote just taken, by which the title of the resolution was adopted, and I ask if upon that motion I cannot submit a few remarks on the merits of the resolution?

The SPEAKER. Debate upon that question must be confined to the merits of the title of the resolution, and the reasons for its reconsideration.

Mr. RICHARDSON. I rise to a question of order. I desire to inquire whether there was a division upon the question of adopting the title? If there was no division, then I have no question to make.

The SPEAKER. There was no division. Mr. RICHARDSON. Then I have no question to make.

Mr. SMITH. I ask the Clerk to read the title of the resolution and the resolution.

Mr. CARTTER. I object to the reading of the resolution. That is not now under consideration. The SPEAKER. It is competent for the House to order the reading of the resolution. The question, therefore, is, Shall the resolution be read?