have been lawful, and proper, and just; and if General Scott had left in his rear at Vera Cruz, a manufactory of either cannon or small arms, and gone on to Mexico, it would have deprived him of many of those laurels which we all concede to him, and would have been looked upon as a great || imprudence and want of foresight. Now, suppose the manufactory, instead of being property owned by the Government, was private property, just as Mason's works above the city for the manufacture of cannon, would not the invading army say the Government derives supplies from this private establishment for the purpose of disabling the enemy, and that they had a right to destroy it? That is the case, it seems to me, in regard to this rope-walk. All its appurtenances being near the navy-yard, when the navy-yard was burned, the enemy would say "this is the place whence this navy-yard derives its supplies, and of course when we burn the navy-yard, we will burn all its appurtenances, whether they be private or public property." That is the ground upon which I rest my objection to this claim.

Mr. BRIGHT. Four years ago, when this claim was before the Senate, I joined the Senator from Kentucky in opposing it; and I believe it was owing to his opposition and my own on the last night of the session that it was defeated. My attention was afterwards called to the claim by a gentleman in whom I had the most unlimited confidence, and I have become satisfied that I was wrong in opposing it. I generally concur with the Senator from Kentucky on claims of this kind, and take it for granted that their name is an objection to them; but I am satisfied that this claim has merit, and that the amount proposed to be paid by this bill is nothing more than the parties are entitled to. I do not know that I could make a better argument upon the point than is presented in the report of the Committee of Claims, which I hold in my hand. That committee has made a favorable report. The Senator from Delaware, however, dissenting. I shall ask for the reading of the report, and I wish to call the attention of Senators to it. It states in a very clear and concise manner the points of the case. It was made by my colleague, [Mr. WHITCOMB,] and has the concurrence, I understand, of the honorable Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. BRODHEAD,] chairman of that committee. I think the facts of the case may be narrowed down to these: The parties for whose benefit this bill is presented owned certain materials and the building referred to. They made all necessary and proper arrangements to remove their cordage, hemp, and other materials, and were upon the verge of removing them when the means they had employed for that purpose were taken by the Government officers, and used by them for the benefit of the Government. All the testimony goes to show the fact that if the Government offcers had not taken the wagons and boats of these parties, and impressed them into the public service, their hemp, and cordage, and other articles, would have been removed to a place of safety. It was the fact that these combustible materials were left in the building, that led to its being destroyed by fire. A committee formerly reported a bill, which became a law, to provide for payment of the materials destroyed in the building. The materials having been paid for, the only question that remains is whether or not the building should be paid for. I think that, as a legal point, if presented to any court, there could be no doubt about the duty of the United States to pay, in this case, all that is claimed. The report presents a better argument than I can make, and therefore I ask that it be read.

The report was read accordingly.

Mr. BAYARD. I do not mean to discuss this question any further. The Senate have heard enough of it. But, with a view to test the sense of the Senate, I move that the further consideration of the bill be postponed indefinitely. The motion was not agreed to.

The bill was then reported to the Senate, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

RECESS.

On the motion of Mr. STOCKTON, it was ordered that when the Senate adjourns to-day, it be to meet on Monday next.

FRENCH SPOLIATIONS.

Mr. BRADBURY. Some time ago the Senate assigned a day for the consideration of the bill

should not be allowed to enter it by a preemption. The land being well known in that part of Louisiana, there can be no difficulty about the location of it.

Mr. FELCH. There is no difficulty at all arising in this case from the want of surveys, or the want of returns at the Land Office. There was a difficulty in the Greensburg district a few years ago. From some interested motives, the lands there were reported as not surveyed; and it was said that the returns were erroneous and fraudulent; and hence the lands were withheld from sale. But I understand now, on further investigation, that they are held for sale as other lands are. The returns have been made, so that there can be no difficulty in ascertaining the range or the township in this district of Greensburg more than elsewhere. If this amendment is made, it abandons altogether the location as originally described in the bill and the report of the committee of the Senate. The only description of the land is, that he shall be permitted to enter, so as to embrace his improvements.

Mr. DOWNS. The parish, and the navigable stream on which the land is situated, are named.

Mr. FELCH. I know it refers to the parish and the land district, but I speak of the specific description of the tract. Now, the fact is this: The petitioner alleges that he resides in township Mr. DOWNS. The bill does allow the land No. 1 of range No. 3; and he goes on in his peto be entered in one body. The reason was ex- tition, and gives a description of the premises, of plained when the bill was up before; but I will what he claims under occupancy, and what he state it again very briefly. The land claimed was claims under two purchases, I think, at adminoriginally settled-part of it-by a man who pre-istrators' sales. His petition describes the land sented his claim, but a preëmption right could not as being in township No. 1 of range No. 3. be completed, because a survey had not been There is a statement from the Land Office on that made. He died, and his right to this preemption subject. I wrote to the Commissioner about it, was sold at probate sale, and purchased by Mr. and ascertained from him that on examination of McManus for $1,800. That gave him a right to the papers in the case, it was found that there was the other party's claim for a preemption to one a discrepancy. The petitioner says he lives in hundred and sixty acres. Another man, a brother township No. 1 of range No. 3, and describes of this individual, Samuel McManus, settled an- the land and his improvements, as within that other lot of land adjoining it, and presented his township; whereas, the surveys show that they application for a preemption; but it was not com- are within township No. 3. Therefore there must pleted because the surveys were defective in that be some mistake about the matter. I am not able quarter of the district. He died, and at probate to say where the mistake is; but certain it is, that sale the petitioner here bought that claim. That what is asked for in the petition, and what is gave him a right to two preemptions. In addition granted by the bill, as it stands, is not in accordto that, there were two or three settlements on ance with the proof adduced in the case. By the lands adjoining. Some presented claims for pre- change in the bill, striking out the number of the emption and some did not; but all of them sold township and of the range, it leaves the land to be whatever rights they had to this petitioner, T. H. taken within township No. 1, or township No. 3; McManus, and he has made his plantation on the and it strikes out, as I said before, all that there is body of land thus claimed by those settlement-in regard to the definite location of the land. If he rights, all of which have been sold to him. He has been living there for years, but has never been able to complete his title; and he now comes in and asks that he may be allowed to enter, by preemption, the settlement-rights thus purchased from individuals, and a small fraction adjoining.

Mr. FELCH. If understand the amendment proposed by the Senator from Louisiana, it gives no definite location to the land whatever.

Mr. DOWNS. The Senator is mistaken, as he will see by reading the bill. I will state the reason why I proposed to strike out the number of the township. It was ascertained, on investigation at the Land Office, that the township was erroneously mentioned; there was a mistake as to the number. But the provision of the bill is, that he shall have the right to enter, by preemption, the lands on which he resides. That is a sufficient designation. Here are the provisions of the bill: they are," that Thos. H. McManus be, and he hereby is, authorized, under such instructions 'as may be given by the Commissioner of the 'General Land Office, to enter, by preëmption, at one dollar and twenty-five cents an acre, at the 'land office at Greensburg, Louisiana, such quan'tity of the public lands, not exceeding eight hun'dred acres, in legal subdivisions, as may embrace 'his actual improvements, in the parish of East Feliciana, on the waters of Black creek." It was found that in consequence of the defectiveness of the surveys, the number of the townships stated in the bill was not the right number; and therefore, to prevent a conflict, I proposed to strike out the number of the township. But this is to embrace the settlements on which he resides, hence there can be no difficulty about it. There is among the papers in the case, a statement made by his neighbors to the effect that these lands on which he resides do not interfere with the claim of any other person, and that they see no reason why he

takes land according to the proof, he takes land which, in his petition, he does not claim. Where the mistake is I cannot say; but if we grant the land for which he asks in his petition, then we grant land to which his proof does not apply.

Mr. DOWNS. There is no difficulty about it at all. I suppose I have exactly the same statement, as the gentleman has, from the Land Office; and it is for that very reason that I moved the amendment. It is very true, that this person, in his petition, did mention a township, which, according to the report of the Land Office, is not that which he intended to name. That is merely a mistake in the number: there is no mistake or difficulty about the actual location; it is perfectly well known; and if this bill fixed no location, there would be no difficulty. It requires that the land shall be laid out under the direction of the Surveyor General, so as to include this man's improvements. The only reason why I had the township stricken out was, because the individual has made a mistake in regard to the number. Therefore, in order to prevent any difficulty, I struck out the number of the township, and left the bill merely to embrace his improvements in whatever township they might be. There is a clause in the bill which shows that there can possibly be no difficulty about it.

The bill provides that this entry shall not interfere with the valid rights of others, and shall be made after the return to the Land Office of the approved plat and survey of the township. I have here a statement made by the neighbors of this individual, showing clearly the locality. The Sur veyor General will have no difficulty in directing how the survey shall be made. I have here a statement, signed by Judge Scott and other citizens of the parish of East Feliciana, Louisiana, who say that they have examined the memorial of Thomas H. McManus, that they are his neigh

bors, are well acquainted with the situation of the lands on which he lives, and know that there is no conflicting claim; they give a description of the lands and say that no injury could result to the Government from complying with Mr. McManus's request. This shows that there will be no difficulty about the location; that will be settled by the Surveyor General without any trouble.

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, the amendment made in Committee of the Whole was agreed to, and the bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, March 5, 1852.

The House met at twelve o'clock, m. Prayer by the Rev. C. M. BUTLER.

The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. Mr. McLANAHAN. I rise to a privileged question. On the 11th day of December last the memorial of Mrs. Mary Reeside was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. That was a clerical error. The Journal stands, with that clerical error upon its face. I ask that the committee be allowed to report the same back, and that it be referred to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, which is the appropriate committee. There being no objection, it was so ordered. On motion by Mr. HARRIS, of Tennessee, it

was

Ordered, That leave be granted to withdraw from the files of the House the petition and papers of the heirs of Lemuel B. Montgomery, for the purpose of having them referred to a committee in the Senate.

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

The SPEAKER. The first business in order is upon the engrossment of the private bills upon the Speaker's table reported from the Committee of the Whole, with the recommendation that they do pass.

Mr. HOUSTON. Will it be in order for me to move that the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union?

The SPEAKER. It is in order.

Mr. HOUSTON. I feel bound to make that motion; and, in doing so, I desire to state to the House that there are two or three special orders before us which are consuming the time of the House, so that it seems to be impossible for me to get up the deficiency appropriation bill, although the public service is actually suffering forthe want of legislation upon it. I therefore appeal to members to go into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, that the special order may be disposed of to-day. Á MEMBER.

to-day."

"Oh no! That cannot be done

go into a Committee of the Whole House on the Private, Calendar.

Mr. DANIEL. Now, sir

The SPEAKER. The Chair must say to the gentleman that questions in regard to the priority of business are not debatable. The rule says that questions of that character must be decided without debate.

Mr. DANIEL. I hope I shall have the indulgence of the House to state the view that I entertain.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will be happy to hear the gentleman's views.

Mr. DANIEL. The enforcement of the rules is what I desire, and am seeking to obtain. I think, Mr. Speaker, until recently there was no sort of question about

Mr. HOUSTON. If the gentleman is making an argument in favor of the point of order, Ï object. I desire to get into committee to dispose of the public business. If I cannot get the House to proceed to the business I am anxious to have them, I am willing that the business suggested by the gentleman shall be disposed of. I do not wish the time of the House consumed by debates upon irrelevant points.

Mr. DANIEL. Have I not a right to discuss a question of appeal in regard to the order of business?

The SPEAKER. Not at all. The questions upon priority of business cannot be debated. The Chair is very well satisfied about that.

Mr. DANIEL. I do not desire to transgress any rule. I am for the enforcement of the rules. I think that is the best way to have business properly conducted.

Mr. HOUSTON. If it were not for the fact that the public business is suffering for the want of legislation upon this deficiency bill, and that one branch of the public service is absolutely and actually without means to carry on its operations, I would be willing to hear the gentleman. My object is to effect that legislation as soon as may

be.

Mr. DANIEL. I should like to call the attention of the Chair to the second rule, by which it will be seen that debate on this point is allowable. The SPEAKER. The Chair begs leave to read the 113th rule:

"All questions relating to priority of business shall be decided without debate."

Does the gentleman appeal? Mr. DANIEL. I do; and I wish the 29th rule to be read to the House.

The SPEAKER. The Chair decides that the special order made by the House is to give it the preference over all other business upon the Calendar for the consideration of the House. The gentleman from North Carolina is of the opinion that no special order can be made to interfere with the private business of Fridays and Saturdays. The Chair decides that a special order sets aside the business appropriated to Fridays and Saturdays as well as that to Monday and Tuesday, or any other day. The Chair is clear in his opinion, but it may be an erroneous one. The gentleman appeals from the decision of the Chair.

Mr. DANIEL. I call for the reading of the 29th rule, and the note explanatory, and also the 26th rule. The view I entertain is sustained by the decisions of points of order in the Journal.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Georgia. Does the Chair decide, that if we go into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union the special order will have preference, and that if the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole the private business will be first in order?

Mr. DANIEL. As the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means has thought proper, upon this day, to move that the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, I shall move that the rules be suspended and that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House for the purpose of taking up for consideration the Private Calendar. I raise the question, and hope it will be settled as to which of these motions has precedence. The private business is suffering as much as that to which the gentleman has referred. We have been guilty of such remissness in the prosecution of the private busi-mittee of the Whole on the state of the Union by ness, that it is enough to excite the clamor and censure of the people throughout the country. We have meritorious claims submitted here-this being the only body that can afford relief-and every consideration of justice and good policy require us to extend attention to that description of business. I wish the Chair to decide which of the motions submitted has the preference.

The SPEAKER. The Chair is of the opinion that the special order has the preference over private bills, and that a motion to go into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union on the special order, takes precedence of the one to

The SPEAKER. The question of order involved in this matter is simply this: It is competent at all times for the House to go into Com

a majority vote; and it is also competent, to-day, for the House, upon the other hand, to go into Committee of the Whole upon the Private Calendar by a majority vote. This is only a question, whether the proposition to go into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union shall take precedence in point of time. It is in the power of the House to decide against the one, and in favor of the other. The decision of the Chair is simply to the effect that the proposition to go into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union on the special order has precedence, in his opinion, and must be first put. That is all.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. I understand the 29th rule of the House as setting apart Fridays and Saturdays for the consideration of private bills.

The SPEAKER. I hope the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. DANIEL] will be indulged in having that rule read.

Mr. JOHNSON. I was merely going to remark-and I imagine every member upon the floor understands the 29th rule-that the order setting apart Friday and Saturday of each week for private bills merely makes it one of the standing rules, and the House, making a special order, of course sets that aside-suspends it.

The SPEAKER. You will find, the Chair will remark to the gentleman from North Carolina, that our rules set apart Mondays for petitions, Fridays and Saturdays for private bills, and a special order sets aside these, as well as all other rules making preference to particular business.

Mr. DANIEL. I call for the reading of the 29th rule and note.

There being no objection, the rule and its explanatory note was read by the Clerk, as follows: • 29.Friday and Saturday in every week shall be set apart for the consideration of private bills and private business, in preference to any other, unless otherwise determined by a majority of the House."

"Note.-Under the rule of 26th April, 1828, relative to a postponement or change of the order of business, it has been decided that it takes two thirds to proceed to public business on Friday and Saturday. The reason of this decision is, that the rule of the 26th April, 1828, made no exception in favor of the clause, for a majority, contained in this rule, and that therefore that provision was annulled. There have been three appeals upon this point, but the House in all instances affirined the decision in favor of two thirds."

The SPEAKER. Two thirds have already decided to set that aside, and upon each and every day of the week the special order has the preference over other business.

Mr. HOUSTON. For the information of the House I will inquire of the Chair, if the special order does not expressly read "that it shall be the special order for that day, and from day to day until disposed of?"

The SPEAKER. It is so, and from that decision the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. DANIEL] takes an appeal.

Mr. DANIEL demanded tellers; which were not ordered.

The question was then taken, "Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?" and decided in the affirmative.

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Illinois. I desire to know of the Chair whether there are not private bills upon the Speaker's table which have been reported from the Committee of the Whole?

The SPEAKER. There are; and the Chair stated this morning that the first business was upon their engrossment.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I was going to suggest that before we go into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, this private business be disposed of.

Mr. DANIEL. Vote down the motion made

by the gentleman from Alabama, and those bills will come up in order.

The question now being on the motion to go into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union,

Mr. HOUSTON demanded tellers; which were ordered.

Mr. DANIEL demanded the yeas and nays. Mr. SACKETT. Is it in order, if the House refuse to go into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, to move to postpone that special order to a day certain, with a view of going into Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendar?

The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks not. The Chair is inclined to think that we would not have control over it in that form. We must first relieve

Mr. ORR. If the House refuse to go into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, we can go into Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendar.

The SPEAKER. Most certainly.

Mr. DANIEL withdrew his call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HOUSTON. I renew the call, as I feel it to be my duty to do so.

The yeas and nays were not ordered.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania, and Mr. HousTON were appointed tellers.

The question was then taken upon the motion that the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and it was decided in the affirmative, the tellers having reported-ayes 78, noes 62.

HOMESTEADS.

The House accordingly resolved itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. JONES, of Tennessee, in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the special order, being House bill No. 7, for the encouragement of agriculture, commerce, manufactures, and other branches of industry, by granting to every man, &c., one hundred and sixty acres of land; and upon which question the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CAMPBELL] was entitled to the floor.

didates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency of the United States, under any party denomination whatever, until their constitutional rights should be secured. This was after the passage of the compromise measures, and the Southern-Rights

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio, resumed the remarks which he began yesterday. He thought that while gentlemen were arranging presidential candidates, they had better look to the source from which they would obtain votes. Notwithstanding the remarks of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. BRECKINRIDGE] yesterday in reference to General Butler, the House was left in utter darkness as to his position in relation to the great question of the disposition of the public lands. The gentleman also passed a high eulogium upon General CASS, but he [Mr. C.] would appeal to any of the friends of that distinguished man whether, during the whole course of the political contest for the Presidency in 1848, General Cass ever gave the country to understand what were his principles and feelings on the great question of internal improve-ganization, the principles upon which it stood, its ments? When upon the lake shore of the Ohio he was appealed to, and his attention called to the disasters to commerce and the immense loss of life and property which occurred upon the Western waters, the only answer he gave was "that the noise and confusion was so great that he could not be heard." And yet the gentleman from Kentucky announced yesterday that General CASS went before the people, making known his principles everywhere. Again, when the Northwest, driven almost to desperation by the refusal of the General Government to attend to the improvement of these great thoroughfares, held a convention at Chicago-not a convention of any party, but a convention of all classes of people-when the distinguished Senator from Michigan was invited, circumstances prevented his attending. He [Mr. CAMPBELL was never able to ascertain the opinions of General CASS or General BUTLER upon this question.

He remarked yesterday that the question of the disposition of the public domain devolved upon this Congress, for it was well understood that the General Government would no longer regard it as a source of revenue; and he therefore had a right to demand of candidates what course they would pursue, if power should be given them, upon this question. He would tell gentlemen who were building up platforms on the subject of slavery, that there were people in the Northwest, of all political parties, who intended that the candidates should make themselves perfectly understood on this subject.

He was in favor of the principle imbodied in the bill which had been reported by the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. BISSELL,] and it was one which addressed itself at once to the best feelings of our nature. It provided simply that there should be grants of public land made to all the States of the Union, for the purpose of enabling them to found and sustain hospitals for the support of the indigent insane. A great deal had been said in relation to the bill under consideration, by which they were to vote a farm to those who were not able to buy. He was in favor of this to some extent; but he held it first to be their duty to provide homes for that class of persons who had been unfortunately deprived of their reason.

past action, its present policy, and its probable destiny. His object was to put the Union Democracy right before the country, and to defend them from the unjust and unfounded charges which had been so freely made against them.

The compromise measures of the last Congress were passed by the votes of a majority of the Democratic party; those measures had gone before the country for approval and confirmation, and the Democratic party, by an overwhelming majority, had approved and sanctioned them. Without intending to disparage the claims of the Whigs who aided in the adoption of these measures, he felt authorized to repeat that the compromise was a Democratic measure, based upon Democratic principles, and passed by Democratic votes; and if it entitled its supporters to any praise or honor, the Democratic party should participate in the greater portion of it. If, on the other hand, the measure was one of fraud or injury to any portion of the Union, the responsibility should fall upon the Democracy. If he should be asked for the proof of the correctness of his assertion that the compromise was a Democratic measure, he would point to the records of the last Congress, which must forever stand as an unimpeachable witness of the truth of what he asserted. The compromise was a consummation of those principles which our republican fathers and the Democratic party had always maintained.

When the compromise had become the law of the land, the question of acquiescence was submitted to the people, and it became with the people of Georgia a paramount question, and all other political questions were absorbed in the consideration of that alone. During the pendency of this subject before Congress, there had risen up a spirit of deep and bitter opposition to the principles upon which it was expected the question would be settled, and upon which it was ultimately settled; and threats of resistance to the Government and a dissolution of the Union became as common as household words with those whose morbid spirits brooded over the destruction of the Government

with almost total indifference.

Before the final action of Congress on the subject of the compromise, the Southern-Rights party was formed, whose principles were set forth at the Nashville Convention. Opposition to the compromise was the groundwork of its action, and all its efforts were directed to the point of making that opposition effectual. It was declared in one of their resolutions that all the evils anticipated by the South had been realized by the passage of the compromise measures. They proposed to remedy this evil, as set forth in a resolution of the con

He was also in favor of giving to the States a reasonable quantity of the public land, so as to enable them to found institutions of learning; because, if they were to place any faith in the reasoning of that document which lately had been regarded as one of consequence-he meant the Farewell Address of the Father of his Country-they were to look to institutions for the dissemination of learning as the surest basis upon which our repub-vention, by recommending to all parties in the lican structure stands. slaveholding States to refuse to go into all conHe was in favor, to a certain extent, of the prin- ventions whose object might be to nominate can

convention until their constitutional rights, which they asserted had been lost by the adoption of the compromise, should be restored. Their second remedy was a call for a Southern Congress, whose duty it was to have been to arrest future aggression and to restore those constitutional rights which they said they lost by the passage of the compromise; and, if they could not do this, to provide for their future safety and independence.

Mr. BROWN, of Mississippi, said that the gentleman from Georgia seemed disposed to hold the State-Rights party of the South responsible for the Nashville Convention, and for all that was said there. He desired to ask the gentleman if it was not his recollection that the convention was gotten up by Whigs and Democrats and by gentlemen who were now State-Rights men? Had it escaped the gentleman's recollection that Judge William L. Sharkey, a prominent leading member of the Union party, was the first President of the National Convention! If any harm had been the result of that convention, he hoped it would be divided between its political favorers.

Mr. CHASTAIN replied that the convention was gotten up as the gentleman had said; but he would remark that so soon as the convention promulgated its doctrines, and showed that they were determined to go against the Union, then the Union Democratic party left.

Mr. BROWN, of Mississippi, desired to know whether it was not within the recollection of the gentleman that the Nashville convention was denounced before its first meeting, before its first organization, in the same spirit in which it has since been denounced, by the National Intelligencer, published in this city-denounced as a treasonable organization, and so denounced by members of Congress and throughout the country All the members of the Union party now joined in this denunciation, which was commenced by the Intelligencer and other papers.

Mr. CHASTAIN said that he did not see as clear as the editors of the Intelligencer, who might have seen the evil brewing even in anticipation of the assembling of the convention, but he did not see it until the convention showed its hand.

Mr. BROWN said that he was not a member of the Nashville Convention, and had nothing to do with getting it up, and had no responsibility on account of its action. Now, he would ask the gentlemen if he could say as much? Did he not, as a member of the Legislature of Georgia, have something to do with getting up the convention?

Mr. CHASTAIN replied that he was not a member of the Georgia Legislature. He was, however, a member of the Georgia Convention which repudiated the doctrines promulgated by the Nashville Convention, and he gloried in it.

Mr. BROWN. Do I understand the gentleman to say that he did not vote to send delegates to the Nashville Convention?

Mr. CHASTAIN. I did not vote to send delegates to that convention.

Mr. C. then referred to the nomination of Mr. McDonald, who was President of the Nashville Convention, as Governor of Georgia by the Southern-Rights party. He said that this was the party which professed and claimed to be the Democratic party of Georgia, and he and all other Union Democrats in his State who refused to unite in this organization had been held to be deserters from the Democratic faith, and responsible for the disorganization of the Democratic party of the State. Now, he would ask national Democrats, both of the North and South, who gave their votes and voices to the salvation of the country in that dark and momentous hour of our history, those who stood shoulder to shoulder with the Union Democrats of Georgia; who voted for the compromise, and in so doing said to the country "Peace, be still" he would ask them whether they were right or wrong in resisting this disor ganizing movement, which was sowing broadcast in our land the seed of discontent, and ultimately disunion? Were they deserters in giving support to those measures which received the votes of a majority of the party, and which had since been sanctioned by more than two thirds of the Demoe

racy? Were they deserters in refusing assent to the principles of the Nashville Convention, and in refusing to unite in its recommendation not to go into any National Convention under any party name whatever, for the purpose of nominating candidates for the next Presidency? But this self-styled Democratic party, which censured the Union Democrats for saying that they would go into Convention, now asserted that they were the true Democracy, and that nobody else but they had the right to assemble in National Convention.

Mr. C. then referred to the platform of the Georgia Union party, which he said had determined, by a large majority, to acquiesce in the compromise measures. Although they did not concur in the whole of them, yet they had determined to abide by them as the settlement of the slavery question. This they proposed to do in good faith, and it was what they expected and required from other parts of the country. The finality and faithful performance of the compromise in all its parts is and was the Georgia platform. They intended to hold these principles to the end, and invited all to their cooperation who desired to unite to put down further agitation, and who desired to secure constitutional rights to their section of the country. He had no hesitation in making the declaration that there was no measure which the Georgia Union Democratic party supported, nor any principle which they advocated, which was not in strict accordance with the well-settled doctrines of national Democracy.

[See Appendix for Mr. CHASTAIN's speech.] Mr. OLDS said that the Democratic party throughout the United States looked with no ordinary anxiety to the result which shall be announced through the ballot-box at the next presidential election. He wished to send forth his warning voice to the Democracy of the country, and call their attention to the exhibitions which had taken place here, which proclaimed to the people of the country that the Democratic partythat party to which they were looking for success and a maintenance of the present form of Government was in danger of being divided. Such had been the result that the organ of the Adminstration had grown very bold, and proclaimed to the world that the Administration feared not the Democracy of the country; for that party was so divided that they could not pass a single resolution condemning a single measure of the Administration. The organ had grown bold in what it had seen to be the divided counsels of the Democratic party. If they were to understand the organ of the Administration, notwithstanding this had been a corrupt Administration, notwithstanding it had run riot with the public money, yet they were casting into their teeth the assertion that the Democratic party was divided, and could not pass a resolution condemning one single act of the Administration. The responsibility rested upon the Democratic party; for whenever a resolution was introduced condemning a single measure of the Administration, some prominent member of the Democratic party had been found to defend the Administra

tion.

He did not propose to express a preference for this candidate or that candidate for the Presidency. It was sufficient for him to say that, amongst all the prominent gentlemen whose names had been mentioned in connection with the office of President, there was not one whom he would not infinitely prefer to the best Whig in the country. He did not wish to see prominent men of his party placed in such a position that when a nomination should be made, it could be said that this prominent Democrat had said this or that of their candidate. He did not wish to be compelled to defend the candidate of the convention to assemble in June from any assertions made by members of the Democratic party. He heard with pleasure the remarks of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. BRECKINRIDGE] in reference to General Butler; and if that gentleman should receive the nomination of the Democratic party, he should be most happy to defend him against the attacks of the Whig party. If Mr. DOUGLAS should receive the nomination, he should be just as happy to battle in his behalf; or if General CASS should be nominated, he should be as happy to do battle under his banner.

VOICES. What about Mr. Buchanan?

Mr. OLDS said, that if any distinguished gentleman who had been named in connection with

the Presidency should receive the nomination of the Baltimore Convention, he would be most happy to do battle under his flag.

Mr. O. then replied to the remarks of Mr. C. in reference to the position of the Democratic party on the question of internal improvements, and denied that General Cass's opinions were unknown on that subject, referring his colleague to the votes of that gentleman on the subject. He called the attention of the committee to the fact, which stood out in bold relief, that notwithstanding all the clamors for reform, and that Administration had succeeded Administration, yet the expenses of the Government had increased enormously year after year; and so long as the National Treasury should be replenished from such sources as revenues from the public lands, just so long could the administration of the country run riot with the public money. He spoke of the reform advocated by the Whig party; and in contradistinction to this, referred to the Galphinisms, Chickasawisms, Gardinerisms, &c., connected with the present Administration. He then advocated the bill before the committee, and was in favor of giving the land to actual settlers, in limited quantities.

Mr. OLDS' speech will be found in the Appen| dix.

Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts, obtained the floor.

M. BROWN, of Mississippi. I ask the gentleman to allow me to offer an amendment to the bill. I wish to offer it at this stage of the proceedings, that it may be discussed along with the general proposition.

Mr. DAVIS yielded for that purpose. Mr. BROWN submitted the following amendment:

A bill to perpetuate preëmption to actual settlers on the
public lands.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the laws now in force, granting preemption to actual settlers on the public lands, shall continue until otherwise ordered by Congress, and that the same be extended to all the Territories of the United States.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That from and after the passage of this act, the rights of preemptors shall be perpetuated: that is to say, persons acquiring the right of preemption shall retain the same without disturbance, and without payment of any kind to the United States, but on these conditions: First. The preemptor shall not sell, alienate, or dispose of his or her right for a consideration; and if he or she voluntarily abandons one preemption and claims another, no right shall be acquired by such claim until the claimant shall first have testified, under oath, before the register of the land office when the claim is preferred, that he or she has voluntarily abandoned his or her original preemption, and that no consideration, reward, or payment of any kind has been received, or is expected, directly or indirectly, as an inducement for such abandonment; and any person who shall testify falsely in such case shall be deemed guilty of perjury. Second. Any person claiming and holding the right of preemption to lands under this act, may be required by the State within which the same lies to pay taxes thereon, in the same manner and to the same extent as if he or she owned the said land in fee simple; and in case such lands are sold for taxes, the purchaser shall acquire the right of preemption only. Third. Absence of the preemptor and his family for six consecutive months shall be deemed an abandonment, and the land shall, in such case, revert to the United States, and be subject to the same disposition as other public lands.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That lands preempted, and the improvements thereon, shall not be subject to execution sale or other sale for debt; and all contracts made in reference thereto, intended in anywise to alienate the right, or to embarrass or disturb the preemptor in his or her occupancy, shall be absolutely null and void.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the preemptor may at any time, at his or her discretion, enter the lands preempted by paying therefor to the proper officer of the United States $125 per acre.

SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That in case of the preemptor's death, if a married man, his right shall survive to his widow and infant children, but the rights of the older children shall cease as they respectively come of age, or when they shall reach the age of twenty-one years. In all cases the right of preemption shall remain in the youngest child. And in case of the death of both father and mother, leaving an infant child or children, the executor, administrator, or guardian, may, upon submitting satisfactory proof of that fact to the register and receiver of the proper land office, demand a certificate of title to the lands so preempted for the benefit of said infant child or children, and may thereafter sell said lands, or otherwise dispose of them for the benefit of the infant child or children aforesaid.

Mr. FOWLER. With the permission of my colleague, I move that the committee rise. by the hands of their Secretary, ASBURY DICK[A message was here received from the Senate INS, Esq.]

ASSIGNABILITY OF LAND WARRANTS.

[A message was here received from the Senate, by the hands of Mr. DICKINS, their Secretary, informing the House that that body had insisted

upon their disagreement to the amendments of the House to the bill providing for the assignability of bounty land warrants, and had agreed to the conference asked by the House; and that they had appointed Messrs. FELCH, SHIELDS, and SMITH, as managers on their part.]

Mr. HOUSTON demanded tellers upon the motion that the committee rise; which were ordered, and Messrs. CHANDLER and FREEMAN were appointed.

The question was then taken, and there beingayes 87, a further count was not insisted upon. So the motion was agreed to.

The committee rose accordingly, 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 particularly the special order, being House bill No. 7, to encourage agriculture, and for other purposes, and had come to no conclusion thereon.

Mr. HOUSTON. If it be in order for me to make a motion now, I will ask the House to clear the Speaker's table of the bills and communications which are there.

Mr. MASON moved that the House adjourn. Mr. FOWLER. I ask the gentleman to give way that me may dispose of a few bills.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Georgia, moved that when the House adjourned, it adjourns to meet on Monday next.

Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky, demanded the yeas and nays; which were not ordered. Mr. JOHNSON withdrew his motion. Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. Is the motion to adjourn until to-morrow or Monday?

The SPEAKER. It is a motion to adjourn until to-morrow.

The question was then taken, and it was decided in the affirmative.

So the House adjourned until to-morrow at twelve o'clock, m.

PETITIONS, &c.

The following petitions, memorials, &c., were presentep under the rule, and referred to the appropriate committees: By Mr. GREEN: The petition of citizens of Wyandott county, Ohio, praying Congress to so amend the bounty land law as to make equal provision for the widows of deceased military officers and soldiers, whether married or unmarried.

Also, the remonstrance of 56 citizens of Crawford county, Ohio, against the extension of the patent of Woodworth's planing machine.

By Mr. GOODENOW: The remonstrance of Benjamin Allen and 49 others, citizens of Franklin county, Maine, against the renewal of the patent granted to Austin and Zebulon Parker for alleged improvements in reaction waterwheels.

By Mr. MILLER: The petition of the heirs of James Russell, of Cape Girardean county, Missouri, praying Congress to confirm a title to a tract of land in said county.

Also, the petition of John Byrd, praying Congress to confirm a title to land in the same county.

By Mr. CONGER: The petition of John Burt and others, for the establishment of mail routes

1st. From Sault Ste. Marie, by way of Grand Island, to Marquette, in the county of Marquette, Michigan.

2d. From Navarino, or Green Bay, Wisconsin, by way of Little Bay de Noquet, to Marquette.

3d. From Marquette, by way of Le Aunse, Houghton county, to Eagle River.'"

4th. From Le Aunse to Ontonagon, Ontonagon county, Michigan, and thence to La Point and Fond Du Lac, in Minnesota Territory.

By Mr. APPLETON, of Massachusetts: The petition of Thomas B. Curtis and others, citizens of Massachusetts, praying that further aid be granted by Congress for the support of the Collins' line of steamers.

By Mr. CURTIS: The petition of citizens of Clarion county, Pennsylvania, praying for a modification of the tariff of 1846.

Also, one of like import from the county of Lawrence, Pennsylvania.

Also, a petition from citizens of Crawford and Warren counties, Pennsylvania, for the establishment of a mail route from Titusville, via Enterprise and Youngsville, to Sugar Grove, Warren county.

By Mr. BABCOCK: The remonstrance of citizens of Oswego county, New York, against the renewal of the Woodworth patent.

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

Also, memorials of citizens of Delaware county, and of Germantown, Pennsylvania, asking for an amendinent of the bounty land act of 1850.

By Mr. FLOYD: The petition of residents of Port Jefferson, that Port Jefferson be made a port of delivery.

By Mr. DURKEE: The remonstrance of H. F. Cox and 257 others, of the county of Racine, Wisconsin, against the renewal of Woodworth's patent.

By Mr. JONES, of New York: The petition of Sarah Smith, widow of Cornelius Smith, late a sergeant in the United States Army, for relief.

By Mr. JONES, of Pennsylvania: Resolutions of th

Legislature of Pennsylvania, relative to the bridge over the Ohio river, opposite Wheeling.

Also, the petition of John G. Fox, asking compensation for naval services in the year 1846.

By Mr. MACE: The memorial of Vincent Virgin, of Warren county, Indiana, asking additional pay for taking the census.

By Mr. FICKLIN: The memorial of a convention composed of delegates from the counties of Clark, Coles, Moultrie, and Macon, in the State of Illinois, assembled at Charleston on the 23d of February, 1852, for the purpose of constructing a railroad from Terre Haute to the Mississippi river, with a branch from Marshall, through Charleston and Sullivan, to Decatur, in Macon county, thereby supplying the necessary links in the Mississippi and Atlantic railroad, and in the railroad connection between Terre Haute, in the State of Indiana, and St. Joseph, in the State of Missouri, and contemplating a continuation of railroad connection to the Pacific, which said memorial prays a grant of the right of way and alternate sections of land to aid in the construction of railroads.

By Mr. HENN: The proceedings of a meeting held at Cedar Falls, Black Hawk county, Iowa, recommending a land office at that place.

By Mr. HARPER: The memorial of J. V. Cushing and 10 others, citizens of the county of Muskingum, Ohio, and the memorial of John Hawes and 128 others, citizens of the same county, praying for the establishment of the bridges of the Wheeling aud Belmont Bridge Company as post roads, and that said bridges remain at their present height, &c.

By Mr. ROBBINS: A petition signed by George Landell, Joseph M. Ritterson, S. Duffield, C. Fortner, and 79 others, citizens of the county of Philadelphia, against the renewal or extension of the Woodworth patent for planing boards, &c. They state that the patentee has enjoyed the benefit from 1828, which will continue, by act of Congress, until the year 1856, and that a further extension would be injurious to the public interests.

Also, the petition of Thomas Wilson and 56 others, citizens of the county of Philadelphia, asking for an extension of the Woodworth patent for a planing machine.

Also, on the same subject, the petition of Alfred S. Price and 91 others, citizens of the county of Philadelphia.

Also, on the same subject, the petition of Samuel Wilson, and 44 others, citizens of Philadelphia county.

Also, on the same subject, the petition of F. Engleman and 63 others, citizens of Philadelphia county.

Also, thepetition of John Stattmon, Reuben Sands, and 33 others, citizens of the county of Philadelphia, asking Congress to so modify the bounty land act of September 28, 1850, as to give those intended to be benefited by said act, and seamen and marines who served in said wars, not less than 160 acres of land.

By Mr. TAYLOR: The petition of John Windall, and 35 others, citizens of Pike county, Ohio, praying Congress to establish a mail route from Bainbridge, in Ross county, Ohio, to Waverly, in Pike county, Ohio.

By Mr. FLORENCE: Letters from Montgomery & Neall, Edward W. Cavenaugh, Joseph S. Snowden, Joseph T. Bailey, Charles Cramer, and A. L. Raymond, citizens of the city and county of Philadelphia, remonstrating against the extension of the Woodworth patent for planing boards, &c.

Also, the memorial of John C. Hancock, George Ireland, William G. Ireland, and others, citizens of the county of Philadelphia, praying for the extension of the Woodworth patent for planing boards, &c.

Also, the memorial of Thomas B. Henderson, Jacob M. Whartanby, George T. Sorber, and others, residents of Germantown, in the county of Philadelphia, praying that 160 acres of land may be granted to the soldiers of the war of 1812, &c.

By Mr. GOODENOW: The petition of Joseph H. Clapp and others, assistant marshals of Maine, asking additional compensation for taking the Seventh Census.

By Mr. BARRERE: The petition of numerous citizens of Highland county, Ohio, praying for the construction of a ship-canal around the Falls of the St. Mary's river, in the State of Michigan.

By Mr. RIDDLE: Joint resolutions of the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Delaware, upon the following subjects:

1st. The breakwater and harbors in the Delaware bay and river.

2d. The fortification upon the Pea Patch Island or Fort Delaware.

3d. The custom house in the Delaware district.

Also, a memorial of the Board of Trade, of Wilmington, praying Congress to make an appropriation for a customhouse in the Delaware district.

By Mr. BABCOCK: The petition of 56 citizens of Oswego, for a Marine Hospital at Oswego, New York. Also, the petition of 183 citizens of the port of Oswego, New York, for the same purpose.

By Mr. DOTY: The petition of citizens of Wisconsin, for a grant of land to aid in the construction of a railroad from Chicago to Fond du Lac and Lake Superior.

By Mr. WASHBURN: The memorial of Elijah L. Hamlin and 289 others, citizens of Bangor, Maine, that the pension laws may be extended to the case of widows of revolutionary soldiers who were married subsequently to A. D. 1799.

By Mr. CONGER: The memorial of the Zilwaukie, Grand Travers, and Mackinaw Plank Road Company, in favor of granting the right of way and certain public lands in aid of the construction of said road.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
SATURDAY, March 6, 1852.

The House met at twelve o'clock, m. Prayer by the Rev. L. F. MORGAN.

The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

The SPEAKER. The first business in order is

upon ordering the engrossed bills on the Speaker's table to be read a third time.

Mr. WARD. I move that we take up the Senate bill No. 182, for extending the time for selling the lands granted to the Kentucky Asylum for teaching the Deaf and Dumb.

Mr. W. said: The time granted by the law, which passed some ten years ago, in which to dispose of these lands, will expire on the first of next month. The lands have been all disposed of except some refuse lands lying in the State of Florida. The trustees of the institution have made exertions to dispose of these lands, but have failed to do it. They desire an extension of five years, and I hope the House will pass the bill.

Mr. HOUSTON. I suggest that we shall this morning take up the business on the Speaker's table, and dispose of the private bills which are there.

Mr. WARD. The bill I wish to take up will not occupy more than five minutes. Mr. HOUSTON. That is very true; but if we take up the bills in their order, we will reach it in less time than that. These bills have all to be referred; and I ask, if there be no objection, that it should be done this morning.

Mr. WARD. Does the gentleman object? Mr. HOUSTON. I do not object to the gentleman's motion.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. BEALE. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to make a personal explanation, which shall not consume much of the time of the House.

There being no objection, Mr. B. said: The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CAMPBELL] yesterday made an observation that none or but few Democrats had refused to vote for the appropriation of overflowed lands of the Mississippi, by the act passed the last session of Congress. I responded to him, that I did not so vote. He said that he had the Journal before him, and my name was recorded for the passage of that law. In examining the Journal, I find that to be the case. Now, I declare that the whole drift of my feelings, my inward sentiments, my open declarations, and my repeated conversations on this floor and elsewhere, were in hostility to that bill. I went home and denounced that bill as part and parcel of a system to vote away the public lands to the Western States, which belonged to all the people of the Confederacy. And I ask if I am to be supposed so inconsistent as this conduct would show me to be. There is an error in the Journal; and if a dozen men should get up now and declare that I voted for that bill at all, I say that the probability is that I misconceived the question and voted in mistake. I appeal to the gentleman who roomed with me the greater portion of two years during the last Congress, to say whether my sentiments were not such as I now declare them to be.

Mr. HARRIS, of Tennessee. I respond with pleasure to the call made upon me by the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. BEALE.] The gentleman and myself roomed at the same house during the last Congress, for the greater portion of the whole session. I recollect to have had very frequent conversations with the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. BEALE] upon the subject of the disposition of the public domain. We differed in relation to some of the propositions which were pending before this House. I recollect that he expressed very frequently to me his fixed and settled hostility to this proposition to give to Arkansas and other States the overflowed lands. He was also hostile to the bounty land bill. I recollect, from frequent conversations, that this was his position during last Congress. I have no recollection, however, as to how he voted upon the bill in question.

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio. I should dislike very much to put the honorable gentleman from Virginia [Mr. BEALE] or any other member of this House, whether a political friend or opponent, in a false position. I referred to the Journal, and stated in general terms what was the vote of the Democratic side of the House upon that question. That was all. I do not understand the honorable

gentleman as intimating that I have been guilty of any improper act in this matter.

Mr. BEALE. By no means.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I am very happy in affording him an opportunity of presenting himself, as far as he may now, in a proper position in relation

to this matter.

But the honorable gentleman will

find by reference to the vote of many of his colleagues, who have assumed the same general position in relation

Mr. HOUSTON. I call the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CAMPBELL] to order.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. With the permission of the House, I wish to say a single word in relation to the subject now before us. I will say by suggestion to the member from Virginia, [Mr. BEALE,] that in all probability if he would refer to the original Journal he might find his name there correctly recorded. Mistakes of this kind have occurred to me. While the bill was pending to establish the Department of the Inte rior, I was lying in my room sick, and remained there until it was discussed and passed. Upon examination of the Journal, I found that my name was recorded upon the passage of the bill, when I was at home sick. I merely throw this out by way of suggestion, to show that mistakes of this kind occur; and, perhaps, by reference to the ori ginal Journal, his vote may be found recorded right. Mr. HOUSTON. I insist upon the regular order of business.

WITHDRAWAL OF PAPERS.

On motion by Mr. CAMPBELL, of Illinois, by unanimous consent,

Ordered, That leave be granted to withdraw from the files of the House the petition and papers in the case of Jacob Banta, for the purpose of reference in the Senate.

On motion by Mr. THOMPSON, of Virginia, by unanimous consent,

Ordered, That the Committee on Revolutionary Pension be discharged from the further consideration of the petition of Drusilla Bukey, and that leave be granted to withdraw the papers in said case for the purpose of reference to one of the Executive Departments.

RUFUS DWINEL.

The SPEAKER. The question now is upon ordering Senate bill No. 88, for the relief of Rutus Dwinel, to a third reading.

Mr. FICKLIN. I would like to know what the bill is about. It is to pay a considerable amount of money.

Mr. FOWLER. The bill has been considered in Committee of the Whole, where all the facts in regard to it were elicited; and it was reported with a recommendation to the House that it do pass.

Mr. FICKLIN. Will the honorable gentleman state what the character of the bill is?

Mr. FOWLER. It is a Senate bill, and the report can be read if necessary.

The bill was then read. It provides indemnity to Rufus Dwinel for the violation of his contract by the Post Office Department for carrying a daily mail.

Mr. AVERETT. I rise for the purpose of asking a question of the chairman of the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, [Mr. OLDS,] as to the character of the contract made by the Department with the parties here. I wish to know if there was not in the contract an express reservation of the right of the Department to lessen or increase the service, by paying to the contractor a pro rata allowance for any increase or diminution of the service. This is an important inquiry; for I find, in regard to the establishment of post offices and post routes and the change of transportation, that the contractors are coming in and presenting their petitions for extra compensa tion, upon the ground that their services are too onerous. I wish to know if there is not an express reservation to determine the right to vary the compensation according to the service rendered.

Mr. OLDS. I will reply to the inquiries of the honorable gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. AVER ETT.] In all the present contracts made by the post office department for carrying the mails, such a reservation as that he has named is made; but this form of contract is of recent date. In all former contracts no such reservation was made, and in the contract upon which this bill is predicated, no such reservation was made. The whole argument of this case consists in this fact.

Mr. HOUSTON. Before the gentleman passes from the point of contract, I would like to propound a question to him also; whether at the date of the present contract the law did not itself constitute a part of the contract, and authorize the Postmaster General either to curtail the service or take it away entirely, and if that law did not give the contractor also, wherever service was stopped