fortune, has a right to demand? Am I not all the more bound to be thus courteous, because of his misfortunes; because those misfortunes will make him more sensitive to the slightest omission of courtesy? And am I not bound to be more assiduously observant of such courtesy, because I know that presently I will be under the painful necessity of refusing him a favor? I will not argue it. I refer it to your hearts. I refer it to your feelings as gentlemen. I say, in regard to this point there can be no question.

Well, suppose Kossuth asks us to overturn the settled policy of the country-supposing him to come to us, as he says he does, an humble petitioner in behalf of his downtrodden and ruined country, to try to induce us to enter into a line of action which he thinks will resuscitate, resurrect, and restore his country to national existence, although we know we cannot grant his request consistently with the duties and obligations which are binding upon us, still shall we treat him rudely? Cannot we excuse him for a little extravagance in this regard? Suppose he sees the advice and views and opinions of Washington standing in his way, and that he, in the extremity of his desire to make an impression upon us, to accomplish something for that bleeding and ruined country of his, which he has left behind-suppose he shall argue and try to persuade us to disregard even the policy of Washington-we will not do it, I trust-cannot we pardon something in the motives that animate and the object which impels him in these efforts for his countrymen and his annihilated country? If we believe his motives to be high and honorable, cannot we sympathize with him in those motives and objects, although we see, as in the case of the unfortunate gentleman who comes and asks us to be responsible for $50,000, that we cannot indorse the note without ruining ourselves, yet we must treat him with all possible courtesy? We must not offend or regard him as a madman, because in his enthusiasm he believes he will be able to convey us harmlessly through the enterprise-like the unfortunate gentleman who asks you to indorse his note, and who, in his anxiety to escape from the hands of the sheriff and marshal, and save his wife and children from poverty and ruin, may ask us to trust in HIS HOPE, rather than in any reasonable and rational prospect. That is the precise posture of the question, and we ought to be unanimous. I do not wish to be understood as reproachng any gentleman. My opinion is, the whole argument against this resolution is founded upon erroneous assumptions and false premises. I regret this debate. We ought to have acted unanimously, and I hope we may do so yet.

Mr. RANTOUL. I desire to say that I shall rete for this resolution, not because I consider Louis Kossuth to be identified with the great cause of European liberty-although I sympathize strongly with all who are the champions of that cause, nor simply because he stands before the country as a champion of national independence although there is no holier or higher cause in which man can be engaged than that; but because he comes here the representative of a principle heretofore almost peculiar to our own institutions. The case of Hungary is the case of a sovereign independent State united with other States under one common executive for limited and specific purposes, that sovereign State reserving her own rights, and Louis Kossuth stands here before the country, the first European that ever stepped upon our shores, the champion of State rights. It is that principle which he personifies, and no other man ever came from the Old World that could be said to personify it. That is the highest claim which he has upon my regard, and, as I believe, upon the regard of the civilized world. What was the case of Hungary for several hundred years? She had constituted a part of a confederated Empire-she had had her own rights and guarded them with jealous care, and she had her separate State independence and sovereignty, which perished through the effcroachments of the central power-a power created originally under express limitations. If this Republic shall go the downward path which every republic has gone whose history has been written, from what cause will it perish? I stand here to welcome Louis Kossuth because I love this Union and pray that it may be eternal; but I see in this Government a symptom of mortality, and what is it? If this Government shall perish, it

will perish by the encroachments of the central power upon the reserved rights of th separate States. And here stands a man whose whole life has been devoted to the vindication of State rights against consolidation and centralization. That is the principle he imbodies, and it is for that we should welcome him here, if we welcome him at all-as I trust in God we shall do cheerfully and with our whole hearts.

Now, what is the reason why liberty has been impossible in Europe from the earliest times down to the present day? Simply because they have had no contrivance there for dividing the powers of the Government among many different administrations. How was it that that great man-the apostle of liberty in two worlds-and his compeers failed to establish constitutional government in France? Why is constitutional liberty impossible now in France? For one reason, and one only; and that is, because all the powers of the Government are intrusted to one central power. And that power must of necessity be altogether too strong for liberty to exist anywhere.

And, sir, when I see here in this country the universal tendency of power to attract to itself all power; when I see that there must, some day or other, || come up the question, Shall this cluster of Republics cease to be a cluster of Republics? Shall it become a national Government? When I see a party sometimes calling itself national, because it carries national powers further than other men are disposed to carry them; when I see such tendencies -I allude not to the present time particularly, but to different periods since the foundation of our Government-when I see that that is the great danger against which every man in this country ought to contend who desires the preservation of our institutions; and when I see here a man who has devoted his life, his energies, his genius—a genius which I will not now pause to characterize, for I trust all around me appreciate it as I do-a man who has devoted all the powers that God has given him to the single purpose of defending the institutions and independence of his country against the central power of her Federal Government, I ask myself, is it possible that any man who sees in the rights of the several States the bulwark and safeguard of our liberties, can for a moment hesitate to welcome such a man? The mystery is to me incomprehensible. I confess I cannot fathom it; and nothing that I have yet heard in the debate upon this floor has given me any assistance in understanding what is at the bottom of this unwillingness to welcome our brother, our friend, our copatriot in the defence of that great principle which lies at the foundation of all our institutions.

If, sir, Louis Kossuth had not been brought here in a government ship-if he had come in his own vessel, at his own expense-if he had never been heard of except as the champion of the principle which I have already specified-that alone would have been claim enough on me. And when such a man has been brought here at the national expense, are we to stand parleying while he is at the door, and debating whether we will let him in or shut him out? What new light have we on this subject? Are we to say that by admitting Louis Kossuth we sanction all the opinions that he has ever uttered? If that be so, we never should have invited him here. He had uttered a good many opinions before he came to this country in which I for one could not agree with him. But I say that we must take the man as the glorious representative of a glorious cause. can take him to our hearts, differ from us as he may on a great variety of questions, and important questions, too, that may arise. All honest men, having sound intellects, do differ. When I find two men agreeing precisely in opinion, I take it for granted that they are either both fools, or that one of them is a fool and is controlled by the other. This man has a right to his own opinions. Let him express them, and express them fearlessly. I do not say by my vote that I indorse any of his opinions. I simply say that I glory in welcoming to America the peculiar champion of the great principles of American institutions.

As such we

With this exposition I am willing that my vote shall go forth to the country; and whatever course Kossuth may hereafter take, I shall not feel that I have reason to regret that vote.

Mr. EWING. I am gratified to have the opportunity of making a brief explanation (and I promise it shall be nothing more) of the vote which

I shall give upon this resolution. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CARTTER] will observe the inconsistency in which his own position upon this subject involves him, when he speaks of our being committed to this act by steps heretofore taken, upon this ground calls upon us to adopt the resolution now before us, and yet tells us we cannot possibly be committed to anything further by what we are now to do.

It seems to me, sir, that the time has already come when we should stop and inquire how much further we are to go. If we are committed, first by the offer of a vessel under a misunderstanding, to extend a national welcome, and then by this welcome forced to lavish these extraordinary honors upon this individual, patriot though he be, and unsatisfied with the hospitality so liberally extended by the people, to turn this great councilhouse of the nation into a reception room, we have a right to stop, and before we go further to demand whither we are tending, and how much further we are to be driven on and on and on, by the consequences of one act to the perpetration of another. He tells you with sufficient plainness, his view of the matter, and we owe Mr. Kossuth(I ask his párdon if I do him injustice in denying him a title)-we owe him a debt of gratitude for his candor. He has proclaimed over this land, that if we are once committed to say to Russia, in diplomatic phrase, as has been proposed already by some gentlemen on this floor, that we will not be indifferent to a second interference on her part; and if she does not subvert her whole policy in deference to our protest, we must then go to war, or be degraded before the eyes of the civilized world! Startling commentary upon this new doctrine of precedents and commitals!

It is said that he comes here as the representative of State-rights doctrines. I much fear me the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. RANTOUL] who has just taken his seat, has learned that doctrine too recently fully to appreciate or comprehend it. State-rights doctrines! Let me ask those gentlemen, who have hitherto complained of the encroachments of the Federal Government in the exercise of implied and doubtful powers-who have complained of the latitudinary construction of the Constitution-whether the teachings of Louis Kossuth are in conformity with a strict construction of that instrument? which, as much as he may despise the political philosophy of its framers, tells us, in language too plain to be mistaken, that it was formed "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity," not to Hungary or any other people on earth. Let me ask those gentlemen who have been so much shocked at the idea of expending two or three pitiful millions in the improvement of the navigation of our streams, where they find the power for the expenditure of untold millions in a scheme of knight-errantry to redress the wrongs of every oppressed people, and if of every people, of course of every oppressed individual upon the face of this broad earth? Every subject of Austria has rights as sacred as those of her Hungarian subjects, and have, too, many of them, struggled to assert them. Without kinship, with no ties of relationship, we are called upon to go to the extreme boundaries of civilization, even to the borders of barbarism itself, upon a crusade in the cause of liberty, while tens of thousands of us, American citizens with Irish blood flowing in our veins, have looked idly, passively, inactively on while Great Britain has denied those sacred rights to Ireland. But in this new crusade the Crescent and the Cross are to be united in the same cause! Those banners which are floating in so strange a combination over our great capitals, which are kissing each other in so new and extraordinary a friendship, are no more to flout defiance at each other, as they have hitherto done upon so many a battlefield; but the Union Jack and the Stars and Stripes, the Crescent and the Cross, are henceforth to march side by side in the van of the armies of Liberty! In this reunion of the ancient oppressor and the revolted colonies, we might well inquire who is to be the annexer and who the annexed? We should not be over confident in our own past success, for the conqueror of India and of Canada, upon whose dominions the sun never sets, may with some reason boast her greater proficiency in this rival

art.

What new developments are to be made, sir, in our relations with the world? what new system to be built up on the ruins of the ancient policy of

our fathers? Again I ask, whither are we tending, and to what point are we to be driven?

Mr. ORR. I move that the committee do now rise.

Cries of "Oh no!" "Oh no!"

The question was taken, and 55 rose in the affirmative.

Mr. CARTTER demanded tellers, which were ordered; and Messrs. BRIGGS and WILDRICK аppointed.

The question was then taken, and the tellers reported-ayes 81, noes 60.

So the motion prevailed.

The committee accordingly rose, and the Speaker, having resumed the chair, the chairman of the committee reported that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union had had the Union generally under consideration, and had come to no conclusion thereon. [Laughter.]

Mr. FICKLIN. I rise to a question of order. I make this point. It is the duty of the chairman of the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union to report the facts as they existed in the committee. Now, a resolution was introduced and debated in that committee, and various amendments were proposed; and I submit with all due deference to the chairman of the committee, [Mr. JONES,] that he should have reported the introduction of that resolution to the House.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I concur fully with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. FICKLIN] in the position he has assumed, that the chairman of the Committee of the Whole should report the state of the facts as they occurred to the House. But I tell you and the House that I have reported the facts. I say that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union always have the state of the Union generally under consideration; and further, that the chairman of that committee never makes a report of anything unless something is done. When you, Mr. Speaker, called him to the chair this morning, the first business in order on the calendar was the message of the President of the United States, which had been referred to that committee, and a resolution had been introduced in relation to it by the gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. HOUSTON.] If that resolution had been adopted, your chairman would have reported that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union had had the Union generally under consideration, and particularly the annual message of the President of the United States, and had come to no conclusion thereon. He would have said nothing about the resolution which had been adopted, or any resolution which had been introduced. He would have made no reference to anything which had not been referred to it by the House. I take it that the chairman of the committee can make no other report without the special instruction of that committee.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. FICKLIN] that he sees no good reason for impugning the motives of the chairman of the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. He thinks the report made to the House was a correct one.

Mr. FICKLIN. I do not want to embarrass the Chair, nor do I desire to make any reflection upon the honorable chairman of the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. But I make the suggestion, that when the House go into the Committee of the Whole upon the state of the Union, they go there for the consideration of a particular bill, and I think the chairman should make his report in relation to that bill.

Mr. CLINGMAN. There is nothing now before the House. I move the usual resolution stopping debate on the Kossuth resolution in half an hour after the House shall have again resolved itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union; and upon that motion I call for the previous question.

Mr. MILLSON. I move that when this House adjourns it adjourn to meet on Friday next. Cries of "No! no!"

The question was then put, and the motion was not agreed to-ayes 53; noes not counted.

Mr. ORR moved that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. KING, of New York, demanded the yeas and nays; which were ordered; and the question being taken, there were-yeas 90; nays 57, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Abercrombie, Aiken, Allison, John Appleton, William Appleton, Ashe, Averett, Thomas H. Bayly, Barrere, Bocock. Bowne, Brenton, Brooks, Albert G. Brown, Burrows, E. Carrington Cabell, Caldwell, Lewis D. Campbell, Churchwell, Clark, Cobb, Cullom, George T. Davis, Disney, Dockery, Dunham, Edmundson, Ewing, Ficklin, Fitch, Henry M. Fuller, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Gentry, Gilmore, Goodenow, Gorman, Grey, Hall, Harper, Isham G. Harris, Sampson W. Harris, Haven, Hebard, Hendricks, Hillyer, Howard, John W. Howe, Thomas M. Howe, Jackson, Andrew Johnson, James Johnson, Robert W. Johnson, George W. Jones, George G. King, Landry, Letcher, Lockhart, Humphrey Mar shall, Martin, Mason, McDonald, McMullin, Meachanı, Miller, Millson, Miner, John Moore, Morehead, Murphy, Oids, Orr, Porter, Powell, Richardson, Savage, Schermerhorn, Scudder, Scurry, Origen S. Seymour, Smith, Snow, Stanly, Benjamin Stanton, Alexander H. Stephens, Taylor, Wallace, Watkins, Addison White, Williams, and Yates -90.

NAYS-Messrs. Willis Allen, Bartlett, John H. Boyd, Briggs, Buell, Joseph Cable, Cartter, Chapman, Cleveland, Clingman, Conger, John G. Davis, Dean, Doty, Durkee, Edgerton, Florence, Floyd, Fowler, Gaylord, Giddings, Green, Grow, Hascall, Horsford, John Johnson, Daniel T. Jones, Preston King, Mann, Molony, Newton, Peaslee, Penniman, Perkins, Robie, Robinson, Sackett, Schoonmaker, David L. Seymour, Skelton, Smart, Frederick P. Stanton, Richard H. Stanton, Stratton, Stuart, Sutherland, Sweetser, George W. Thompson, Thurston, Townshend, Tuck, Walbridge, Walsh, Ward, Washburn, Welch, and Wildrick-57.

in half an hour after we shall again go into such committee. I beg leave to call the attention of the Chair and the House to the 136th rule. That rule provides that whenever any bills are referred to the Committee of the Whole by the House, the House may, according to that rule, discharge the committee from the further consideration of them after acting without debate on all amendments pending, and that may be offered. The rule contemplates only bills referred to the committee on the part of the House. This resolution relates to no bills, nor to any action upon a bill referred to the committee by the House. And I submit that if Mr. Kossuth comes in this House at all, he should not come here by force of any gag resolution.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will remember that the resolution before the House is not debatable; and further, that no question of order arising out of that proposition can be debated.

Mr. STANLY. I only rise to make an inquiry of the Chair. I wish to state my point of order so that the Chair may understand it.

The SPEAKER. I did not intend to interrupt the gentleman in stating his point of order. I desire to give him every reasonable facility for

PETITIONS, &c.

The following petitions, &c., were presented under the rule, and referred to the appropriate cominittees:

By Mr. BROWN, of Mississippi: The remonstrance of Ellis Henderson and 49 other citizens of Mississippi, against any extension of the grant of the public lands to the Ohio and Mobile Railroad Company which shall conflict with the interests of settlers, &c., &c.

By Mr. DISNEY: The memorial of the Chamber of Commerce of Cincinnati, asking for the erection of a marine hospital in that city.

Also, the memorial of the administrator of J. P. Wallace,

deceased, in relation to Mexican indemnities.

By Mr. BRIGGS: The memorial of 70 merchants and others, of the city of New York, to refund the duty on merchandise destroyed by fire in the year 1845.

Also, for the same, memorial of the Common Council of the city of New York.

Also, for the same, resolution of the Chamber of Commerce of the city of New York.

By Mr. WALBRIDGE. The petition of Moses Barker and 51 other citizens of Danby, in the county of Tompkins, New York, for a mail route from Ithaca, in the county of Tompkins, to Spencer, in the county of Tioga, through West Danby.

Also, the petition of Homer Muck and 121 other citizens of Ithaca, for same mail route.

Also, the petition of N. T. Gary and 43 other citizens of Spencer, for same mail route.

Also, the petition of Tamza Smith, for relief.

By Mr. TAYLOR: The memorial of Charles D. Arferedson, asking remuneration for his services as Charge d'Affaires ad interim at the Court of Stockholm.

By Mr. MEACHAM: The petition of O. A. Burton, President of Champlain Transportation Company, and others, for a light-house on Lake Champlain.

By Mr. TAYLOR: The petition of Adonijah Crane and 96 others, citizens of Scioto and Adams counties, Ohio, praving Congress to establish a post route from Lucasville, in Scioto county, to Locust Grove, in Adams county, Ohio. By Mr. WEIGHTMAN: The memorial of the Council and House of Representatives of the Territory of New Mex

ico, praying the enactment of a law providing for geological and mineralogical surveys of said Territory.

Also, the memorial of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of New Mexico, asking for said Territory a grant of $50,000 to enable it to open a wagon road from Santa Fé to the valley of Taos.

Also, the memorial of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of New Mexico, praving the relinquishment to said Territory of all the right, title, and interest the United States may have to certain lots and houses in the city of

Santa Fé.

By Mr. BISSELL: The memorial of J. L. Collins, praying that the benefits of the bounty land law of September 28. 1850, may be extended to the volunteers raised in New Mexico, in 1849, by Colonel Washington.

By Mr. SCUDDER: The petition of Willis Hawes and others, citizens of Massachusetts, for a survey and appropriation for a breakwater at Dennis, in Barnstable bay.

Also, from the files of the House, the petition of Job Chase and others, for the location of a light-boat on Kellpond bar in the Vineyard Sound.

Also, from the files of the House, the petition of Andrew Harwood, of Bristol county, Massachusetts, for a pension on account of wounds received and services performed in the Mexican war.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. WEDNESDAY, December 31, 1851. The House met at twelve o'clock, m. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

RECEPTION OF LOUIS KOSSUTH.

Mr. STANLY. I rise to a question of order upon the proposition offered yesterday by my colleague, [Mr. CLINGMAN,] to stop debate in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union

Mr. STANLY. I wish to have my point of order understood; and if I succeed in doing so, I will acquiesce in the decision of the Chair.

The SPEAKER. The rule to which the gentleman refers, does not in terms specify resolutions. But it has been the uniform practice under that rule to consider in Committee of the Whole, not only bills, but also resolutions, the President's messages, and whatever other matter may have been referred to it by the House. The Chair would refer the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. STANLY] to an authority contained in the Journals of the last Congress, directly to the point, which the Clerk will read to the House. The debate upon the President's message, in that case, was stopped by a resolution similar to this one now before the House.

Mr. BAYLY, of Virginia. The Speaker can only know what has transpired in the Committee of the Whole House upon the state of the Union, from the report of the chairman of that committee. That chairman did not report that the President's message was under consideration, and he could not have so reported, for such would not have been the facts in the case.

Mr. GIDDINGS. Is there an appeal from the decision of the Chair?

The SPEAKER. It is the opinion of the Chair that the resolution introduced by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. CLINGMAN] is in order. [Great confusion in the Hall.]

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. I call for the reading of the resolution.

Mr. STANLY. I do not understand the decision of the Chair. I did not hear a word of it. The SPEAKER. The Chair decides that the resolution is in order.

Mr. STANLY. I did not understand the Chair as giving any reasons for such decision.

The SPEAKER. The Chair stated that it had been the practice of the House, under the 136th rule, for the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union to consider not only bills, but also resolutions, and whatever else may have been referred to it by the House.

Mr. STANLY. I would like to hear of a case in point establishing such a practice. I never heard of it before.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will read from the Journals.

The Clerk then read the authority referred to by the Speaker, from the House Journal of the second session of the Thirty-first Congress, on page 33, as follows:

"Resolved, That the debate in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, on the President's message, shall cease in five minutes after the committee shall again resume the consideration of the same, (if the committee shall not sooner come to a conclusion upon the same,) and the committee shall then proceed to vote on such propositions as may be pending, or offered, in reference to the same; and shall then report it to the House, with such propositions as may have been agreed to by the committee."

Mr. STANLY. How did the Kossuth resolution get before the committee? It has not been referred to it by the House.

The SPEAKER. The President's message was before the Committee of the Whole on the

or any other motion. It may be I am not entitled to take the floor while the gentleman from Ohio has it. The moment he sits down, if I have the floor, I may make that privileged motion; which motion must be acted upon before the House proceeds to the other question.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will decide the points in the order in which they are made. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. CLINGMAN] asked for the previous question on yesterday upon this resolution. The Journal does not show that fact. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CAMPBELL] takes the floor, and moves to amend the resolution. The decision of the Chair at the moment was, that the demand for the previous question must be put. The gentleman from Ohio now assumes that he has the floor upon the proposition to amend the resolution, and that the floor cannot be taken from him to supply defects and add to what should have been in the Journal, and in that state of things no motion can be made to amend the Journal. That is what I understand to be the proposition of the gentleman from Ohio. The Chair decides that it is competent even in that condition of things to move to amend the Journal, as he regards it as one of those privileged motions which must be put. The Chair is therefore of the opinion that the motion of the gentleman from North Carolina to amend the Journal is in order.

Mr. OLDS. I move to lay the appeal upon the table.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. Can I rise and deprive a member of the floor, to make a privileged motion? I cannot take the floor from him and move an adjournment as a privileged motion, or to bring a question of privilege before the House.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CAMPBELL] was not entitled to the floor at all, the previous question having been demanded. It is moved to lay upon the table the appeal now taken by the gentleman from Ohio, for it has changed its character somewhat.

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

Mr. CABELL, of Florida, called for tellers on the yeas and nays; which were ordered, and Messrs. STONE, and STEPHENS of Georgia, appointed.

The count was made, and the yeas and nays were ordered.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will again state the point of order upon which the appeal has been taken. The question is simply this: that the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. CLINGMAN] had a right to move to amend the Journal. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CAMPBELL] appeals from the decision of the Chair. The motion is now made to lay that appeal upon the table, and upon that motion the yeas and nays are ordered.

Mr. CABELL. I desire to be informed as to the point of order, and if I am mistaken, I desire to be corrected. The Chair has decided, that while one member had the floor, another member had the right to move to amend the Journal.

The SPEAKER. The Chair has made no such decision; for, if the demand for the previous question was pending, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CAMPBELL] had no right to the floor.

Mr. CABELL. The gentleman from Ohio was upon the floor, and was recognized by the Chair. The SPEAKER. He had no right to it. Mr. CABELL. He was recognized by the

Chair.

The SPEAKER. der.

Gentlemen will preserve or

The question was then taken on laying the appeal upon the table, and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 109, nays 41; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Aiken, Willis Allen, Allison, John Appleton, William Appleton, Ashe, Averett, Bartlett, Bell, Bissell, Bowne, John H. Boyd, Bragg, Breckenridge, Brenton, Briggs, Buell, Burrows, Busby, Jo-eph Cable, Cariter, Chapman, Chastain, Clark, Cleveland, Clingman, Cobb, Conger, George T. Davis, John G. Davis, Dean, Doty, Durkee, Eastman, Edgerton, Edmundson, Ficklin, Fitch, Florence, Floyd, Fowler, Henry M. Fuller, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Gaylord, Gentry, Giddings, Goodenow, Gorman, Green, Grow, Hall, Sampson W. Harris, Hascall, Hendricks, Henn, Hillyer, Horsford, John W. Howe, Thomas M. Howe, Ingersoll, Ives, Jackson, John Johnson, Robert W. Johnson, Daniel T. Jones, George G. King, Preston King, Kuhns, Letcher, Lockhart, Mace, Mann, Mason, McDonald, McMullin, Meacham, Millson, Miner, Molony, Nabers, Newton, Olds, Orr, Peaslee, Penn, Penniman, Perkins, Fowell, Richardson, Riddle, Robie, Robinson, Sackett,

Schermerhorn, Schoonmaker, Scudder, David L. Seymour, Origen S. Seymour, Skelton, Smart, Frederick P. Stanton, Richard H. Stanton, Stone, Stratton, Stuart, Sutherland, Sweetser, George W. Thompson, Thurston, Townshend, Tuck, Walbridge, Wallace, Ward, Washburn, Welch, Addison White, Wildrick, and Yates-109.

NAYS-Messrs. Babcock, Thomas H. Bayly, Barrere, Bocock, Bowie, Brooks, E. Carrington Cabell, Caldwell, Joseph P. Campbell, Lewis D. Campbell, Churchwell, Cullom, Disney, Dockery, Dunham, Grey, Hammond, Harper, Isham G. Harris, Haven, Hebard, Hunter, Andrew Johnson, George W. Jones, Landry, Humphrey Marshall, Martin, Miller, Morehead, Murphy, Porter, Savage, Scurry, Smith, Stanly, Benjamin Stanton, Alexander H. Stephens, Taylor, Venable, Walsh, Watkins, Wilcox, and Williams

-41.

So the appeal was laid upon the table.

The question recurred upon Mr. CLINGMAN'S motion to amend the Journal; and being taken, it was decided in the affirmative.

So the Journal was ordered to be so amended. ADJOURNMENT UNTIL SATURDAY. Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I desire to make a privileged motion. To-morrow is New Year's day; I see that there are to be a great many houses open, and members will doubtless be visiting them, and perhaps they will not be in a very good condition for business the day after. I therefore move that when the House adjouns to-day, it adjourn to meet on Saturday next.

Mr. TUCK. Will not the resolution to adjourn till Saturday be quite as much in order after the adoption of the Kossuth resolution as it is

now?

The SPEAKER. The Chair will decide that question when it arises properly.

Mr. FOWLER demanded the yeas and nays; which were ordered; and the question being taken, it was decided in the negative-yeas 74, nays 89; as follows:

Clingman, Cobb, Conger, George T. Davis, John G. Davis, Dean, Disney, Doty, Durkee, Eastman, Edgerton, Ficklin, Florence, Floyd, Fowler, Henry M. Fuller, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Gaylord, Gentry, Giddings, Gilmore, Gorman, Green, Grey, Grow, Hascall, Hendricks. Henn, Horsford, John W. Howe, Thomas M. Howe, Hunter, Ingersoll, Ives, John Johnson, Daniel T. Jones, Preston King, Kuhns, Letcher, Lockhart, Mace, Mann, Edward C. Marshall, Mason, McDonald, Meacham, Molony, Nabers, Newton, Olds, Peaslee, Penn, Penniman, Perkins, Porter, Richardson, Riddle, Robie, Robinson, Sackett, Schoonmaker, Scudder, David L. Seymour, Origen S. Seymour, Skelton, Smart, Snow, Benjamin Stanton, Frederick P. Stanton, Richard H. Stanton, Stone, Stratton, Stuart, Sutherland, Sweetser, George W. Thompson, Thurston, Townshend, Tuck, Walbridge, Walsh, Ward, Washburn, Welch, Addison White, and Wildrick-100.

So the House refused to lay the resolution upon the table.

The question recurring on the adoption of the resolution, it was taken, and decided in the affirmative-yeas 102, nays 56; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Willis Allen, Allison, John Appleton, Bartlett, Bell, Breckenridge, Briggs, Buell, Busby, Joseph Cable,Cartter, Chapman, Chastain, Clark, Cleveland, Clingman, Cobb, Conger, George T. Davis, John G. Davis, Disney, Doty, Durkee, Eastman, Edgerton, Ficklin, Florence, Floyd, Fowler, Henry M. Fuller, Gaylord, Gentry, Giddings, Gilmore, Goodenow, Gorman, Grey, Grow, Sainpson W. Harris, Hascall, Hendricks, Henn, Horsford, John W. Howe, Thomas M. Howe, Ingersoll, Ives, John Johnson, Robert W. Johuson, Daniel T. Jones, Preston King, Kuhns, Letcher, Lockhart, Mace, Mann, Edward C. Marshall, Mason, McDonald, Meacham, Molony, Nabers, Newton, Olds, Peaslee, Penn, Penniman, Perkins, Rantoul, Richardson, Riddle, Robie, Robinson, Sackett, Schermerhorn, Schoonmaker, Scudder, David L. Seymour, Origen S. Seymour, Skelton, Smart, Snow, Benjamin Stanton, Frederick P. Stanton, Richard H. Stanton, Stone, Stratton, Stuart, Sutherland, Sweetser, George W. Thomp san, Thurston, Townshead, Tuck, Walbridge, Wallace, Walsh, Ward, Washburn, Welch, Addison White, Wildrick, and Yates-102.

NAYS-Messrs. Abercrombie, Aiken, Ashe, Averett, Thomas H. Bayly, Barrere, Bocock, Bowie, Bragg, Brenton, Brooks, Burrows, E. Carrington Cabell, Caldwell, Lewis D. Campbell, Churchwell, Cullom, Dean, Dockery, Dunham, Edmundson, Ewing, Fitch, Hall, Hammond, Harper, Isham G. Harris, Haven, Hebard, Hillyer, Jackson, Andrew Johnson, James Johnson, George W. Jones, Landry, Humphrey Marshall, Martin, McMullin, Miller, Millson, Miner, John Moore, Morehead, Murphy, Orr, Porter, Powell, Savage, Scurry, Smith, Stanly, Alexander H. Stephens, Taylor, Venable, Watkins, Williams-56.

NAYS-Messrs. Willis Allen, Allison, Babcock, Bartlett, Bissell, Bowne, John H. Boyd, Breckenridge, Brenton, Briggs, Buell, Joseph Cable, Cartter, Chapman, Chastain, Clark, Cleveland, Clingman, Cobb, Conger, John G. Davis, Dean, Doty, Durkee, Eastman, Edgerton, Ficklin, Floyd, Fowler, Gaylord, Giddings, Gilmore, Gorman, Grey, Grow, Harper, Hascall, Hendricks, Henn, Horsford, John W. Howe, Thomas M. Howe, Ingersoll, Íves, Andrew Johnson, John Johnson, Robert W. Johnson, Daniel T. Jones, George G. King, Preston King, Letcher, Mann, McDonald, Meacham. Molony, Newton, Peaslee, Penniman, Perkins, Robie, Robinson, Sackett, Schoonmaker, Scudder, David L. Seymour, Origen S. Seymour, Skelton, Smart, Snow, Benjamin Stanton, Frederick P. Stanton, Stone, Stratton, Stuart, Sweetser, George W. Thompson, Thurston, Townshend, Tuck, Walbridge, Walsh, Ward, Washburn, Watkins, Welch, Addison White, Wilcox, Wildrick, and Yates-89. So the motion was not agreed to.

The question then recurred upon seconding the demand for the previous question.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia, demanded tellers; which were ordered, and Messrs. STEPHENS of Georgia, and RICHARDSON were appointed. The question was then taken, and the tellers reported-ayes 89, noes 48.

So the previous question received a second. The main question, viz: on the adoption of Mr. CLINGMAN's resolution to close debate, was then ordered.

Mr. HARRIS, of Tennessee, moved to lay the resolution on the table, and called for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered; and the question being taken, it was decided in the negativeyeas 56, nays 100; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Abercrombie, Aiken, Ashe, Averett, Thomas H. Bayly, Barrere, Bocock, Bowie, John H. Boyd, Bragg, Brooks, Albert G. Brown, E. Carrington Cabell, Caldwell, Lewis D. Campbell, Churchwell, Clark, Cullom, Dockery, Dunham, Edmundson, Ewing, Fitch, Hall, Hammond, Harper, Isham G. Harris, Sampson W. Harris, Haven, Hebard, Hillyer, Jackson, Andrew Johnson, James Johnson, George W. Jones, Landry, Humphrey Marshall, Martin, McMullin, Millson, Moore, Morehead, Murphy, Orr, Powell, Savage, Scurry, Smith, Stanly, Alexander H. Stephens, Taylor, Venable, Wallace, Watkins, Wilcox, and Williams.-56.

NAYS-Messrs. Willis Allen, Allison, John Appleton, William Appleton, Babcock, Bartlett, Bell, Bissell, Bowne, Breckenbridge, Brenton, Briggs, Buell, Burrows, Busby, Joseph Cable, Cartter, Chapman, Chastain, Cleveland,

Mr. CARTTER moved that the rules be susCommittee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

ADJOURNMENT UNTIL FRIDAY.

Mr. STANLY moved that when the House adjourns to-day, it adjourn to meet on Friday

next.

Mr. VENABLE demanded the yeas and nays; which were not ordered.

The question was then taken on the motion, and it was agreed to, on a division; ayes 98, noes 46.

The question recurring on Mr. CARTTER'S motion, it was taken, and agreed to.

So the rules were suspended, and the House resolved itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. JONES, of Tennessee, in the chair.)

The CHAIRMAN stated the business before the committee to be the annual message of the President of the United States, in relation to which a series of resolutions had been offered by the gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. HOUSTON,] and an amendment to that resolution by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. SEYMOUR.]

Mr. CARTTER. I move that the committee do now take up that portion of the President's message which relates to Kossuth.

Mr. BAYLY, of Virginia. I rise to a question of order.

The CHAIRMAN. The entire message of the President is before the committee, and the only question pending is the resolution of the gentleman from Alabama and the amendment thereto offered by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. SEYMOUR.]

Mr. SEYMOUR, of New York. As I had the honor of proposing that amendment to the resolution offered by the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, and as that gentleman is not now present, I hope, by general consent, the resolution and amendment will be passed over, and the committee will proceed to take up the resolution which was under consideration yesterday. I make that motion.

Mr. CLINGMAN. I submit this point of order: the business which was before the committee on yesterday-that is, the resolution of the

gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CARTTER]-was left unfinished, and I ask if that is not the regular business before the committee?

Mr. SEYMOUR. I insist upon my motion to lay aside the resolution of the gentleman from Alabama, (Mr. HOUSTON,] and the amendment which I had the honor of proposing to that resolution, and that we proceed to take up the resolution which was under consideration yesterday, offered by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. CARTTER.]

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair decides that a motion to postpone any particular part of the President's message is not in order. The President's message and resolution of the gentleman from Alabama are now regularly before the House, and the Chair thinks they cannot be postponed in part.

Mr. SEYMOUR. My amendment relates not to the consideration of the message, but to one of the specific resolutions offered by the gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. HOUSTON.] I suppose it is in order to move to postpone that, if not all the resolutions offered by the gentleman from Alabama, and take up the resolution offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CARTTER] yesterday, which relates also to the message. If the Chair decides that motion to be out of order, I shall be constrained to take an appeal from that decision. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is of opinion that the committee, when last in session, having had a resolution introduced which was not based upon the questions referred by the House to the committee, that it does not come up as unfinished business of a former session of the committee. The Chair is further of the opinion that the motion of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. SEYMOUR,] proposing to postpone a particular resolution to distribute the message, is not in order. The only legitimate course for the committee to pursue, the Chair thinks, is to proceed with these resolutions in the order in which they stand on the calendar.

Mr. SEYMOUR. I take an appeal from that decision.

Mr. RICHARDSON. The gentleman from New York, [Mr. SEYMOUR,] as I understand it, proposes to lay aside the resolutions introduced by the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means and an amendment proposed by himself to one of those resolutions. Does the Chair detide that motion to be out of order?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair decides that it is not in order to move to lay aside those resolutions unless the whole message goes with it. It is upon the same principle as when a bill is pending in the House and an amendment thereto; if a motion be made to lay that amendment upon the table, and the motion prevail, it carries with it the whole bill.

Mr. RICHARDSON. I want to make one single inquiry. The effect of the motion is to be decided hereafter. The right to make that motion has never been questioned in committee. In my opinion the Chair is clearly in error in deciding that the gentleman from New York [Mr. SEYMOTE] has not the right to make a motion to lay aside these resolutions.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. RICHARDSON] is clearly right in saying the right to make the motion has never been questioned; for if the Chair is correct, such motion has never been made in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. The Chair adheres to its decision. From that decision the gentleman from New York [Mr. SEYMOUR] appeals.

Mr. CLINGMAN, I made a point of order which comes up first. I desire to appeal from the decision of the Chair-if it is competent for me to do so upon the point I made, that the business pending when the committee rose was so much of the President's message as relates to Kossuth and the resolution in regard to it. That resolution was not disposed of yesterday, and, as I understand it, comes up here as unfinished business to-day, and is the regular order. The Chair, as I understand him, decides that it does not so come up. From that decision I desire to appeal.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair overrules the point made by the gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. CLINGMAN.] The Chair will state further, that one of the resolutions before the committee proposes to make a reference of so much of the message as relates to Louis Kossuth. The

resolution to which the gentleman from North Carolina refers, as having been before the committee at a previous sitting, has no relation to and does not connect itself with the President's message at all.

Mr. CLINGMAN. Whether it relates to the President's message or not, it is before the committee under the Chairman's own decision. I care not whether it is connected with the message; it has come up before the committee, and stands as the unfinished business. It is upon that ground that I take an appeal from the decision of the Chair.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair decides that the President's message, and the resolution of the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, are now the business before the committee. The gentleman from New York [Mr. SEYMOUR] moves to lay aside all of the message except so much as | relates to Louis Kossuth, and to proceed to the consideration of that part of it. The Chair decides that the motion is not in order, and from that decision the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. CLINGMAN] appeals.

Mr. CLINGMAN. The Chair misunderstands || me. My point is, that the resolution under consideration yesterday is now the regular business before the committee. I understand the Chair decides differently. It is from that decision that I take an appeal.

The CHAIRMAN. The rules of the House prescribe the mode of proceeding in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union; and those rules prescribe that the business shall be taken up in the order in which it is referred and stands upon the calendar. The committee cannot go back, as the Chair conceives, and take up anything as unfinished business, but must take up the business as it stands upon the calendar, as the rule prescribes.

Mr. RICHARDSON. I desire to ask a single question.

The CHAIRMAN. There is an appeal now pending which was taken by the gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. CLINGMAN.] The question is, "Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Committee?"

President's message relating to Kossuth before the committee?

The CHAIRMAN. If the Chairman were a member upon the floor, there are several motions which he thinks he could make in order, but he does not deem it his province to instruct gentlemen as to the proper motions to be made. It is his duty to state to the committee the business as it comes up; and the good sense and knowledge of gentlemen will certainly enable gentlemen to proceed with the business of the committee.

Mr. FICKLIN. In connection with these questions of order, I ask that the last paragraph on page 150 of the Manual, be read.

Mr. CABELL. We seem to be in the midst of great confusion. I move that the committee do now rise; and upon that motion I call for tellers. Tellers were ordered; and Messrs. FULLER and WILLIAMS were appointed.

The question was then taken, and the tellers reported-ayes 36, noes 86.

So the committee refused to rise.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is now upon the appeal of the gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. CLINGMAN.]

Mr. SEYMOUR, of New York. Before the question is taken, I ask of the Chair if two appeals can be taken at the same time?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina appealed from the decision of the Chair before the gentleman from New York submitted his; but it was not put to the House, and is therefore, now, the only one pending.

Mr. FICKLIN. I now ask that the paragraph in the Manual be read.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be read, if no objection is made.

A MEMBER objected.

The question now being "Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Committee? tellers were demanded and ordered; and Messrs. MARSHALL of Kentucky, and ORR were appointed.

The question was then taken, and the tellers reported-ayes 36, noes 75-no quorum.

[Cries of "Call the roll!" and "Recount!"] Mr. CLEVELAND. I call for another count. The CHAIRMAN. Another. count is called for. If there is no objection, it will be done.

[Cries "I object!" "I object!" all over the House.]

The CHAIRMAN said the roll would be called to ascertain the names of the absentees.

Mr. GENTRY. I desire to ask one question. Did not the House this morning decide that all debate in Committee of the Whole upon the state of the Union should cease upon this resolution in a half hour after the committee commenced its session, and that the committee should proceed to vote upon this resolution? If this is so, I submit if the House has not decided these questions about which there seems to be so much difficulty?

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the resolution.

The resolution was then read, as follows: Resolved, That all debate in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, upon so much of the President's message as relates to Louis Kossuth, shall terminate in one half hour after the committee shall again resume its consideration, (if the committee shall not sooner come to a conclusion on the same,) and the committee shall then proceed to vote on such propositions as may be pending, or offered, in reference to the same, and shall then report it to the House, with such propositions as may have been agreed to by the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will remark, that the resolution provides for terminating the debate upon so much of the message as relates to Louis Kossuth; but the entire message is before the committee, and the resolution does not terminate debate upon any other portion of the mes

The roll was then called and the absentees noted. The committee rose, and the Speaker having resumed the chair, the Chairman of the Committee [Mr. JONES, of Tennessee] reported that the Com

had the state of the Union generally under consideration, and especially the President's message; and having found itself without a quorum, caused the roll to be called, and had instructed him to report the facts to the House, with the names of the absentees.

The CHAIRMAN also stated that Mr. HousTON, of Alabama, is confined to his rooms by sickness, and that he had been requested to state that fact to the House.

A quorum being now present, the committee resumed its session; and the question being taken on the appeal of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. CLINGMAN] from the decision of the Chair, the tellers (Messrs. MARSHALL, of Kentucky, and ORR) reported—ayes 29, noes 89.

So the appeal was sustained, and the decision of the Chair overruled.

The CHAIRMAN. By this decision the committee have decided that the message of the President of the United States is not before the committee; but that the resolution introduced to the committee when last in session by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. CARTTER,] proposing to appoint a committee of five to receive Louis Kossuth, is before the committee; and upon that question the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. DISNEY] is entitled to the floor.

Mr. STANTON, of Tennessee. I rise to a question of order. I do not understand that the committee has decided that the President's message is not before the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair stated distinctly that the message was before the committee. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. CLINGMAN] made a question of order that the resolution of the