I hold in my hand. The Solicitor of the Treasury remarks:

Upon a full examination of the whole case, I conclude:

1st. That there is no error in the charge of the court to the jury. If there was any error, it was one in favor of the defendant, to which he had no right to except.

2d. There being no error in law, no dispute concerning the facts, (they having all been found by the jury,) it would be unjust to the parties to protract useless litigation; to Harmony, by delaying the payment of his demand found by the court and jury to be just; to Colonel Mitchell, by keeping suspended over him this heavy judgment, so well calculated to embarrass and discredit him.

Mr. STUART. I move to amend by postponing the matter to the first Monday in May, so that it may come upon a Monday.

Mr. SEYMOUR. I imagine that the object which the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. STUART] seeks to obtain, will not be reached by the postponement which he moves. It is evident that this case has been recently tried in the circuit court of New York. It stands as a recent case upon the calendar of the Supreme Court, and every der the pressure of such necessity, and was, therefore, jus- gentleman who is acquainted with the situation of

"3d. If there be any error in the charge to which the defendant had a right to except, it must be found in that part of it which speaks of the existence of a public necessity, &c. Now, if the Supreme Court, having the case before it on a writ of error, should send down the case for a second trial for the reason that Colonel Mitchell did act un

It

tified in seizing the property for the public use, then in what better condition would be the Government? None. would be bound to make just compensation to Harmony, instead of indemnifying Colonel Mitchell.

4th. Should the ease go to the Supreme Court, and the question of the right of impressment of private property under the law as it now exists be presented to it, I feel an entire confidence that they will decide that the right does not exist, and never can exist, until Congress shall confer it by law passed in pursuance of the Constitution. If so, Colonel Mitchell cannot avoid the payment of the judg

ment: and as he acted in obedience to the order of his superior officer, and the chief in command, in making the seizure; and as that order and seizure I have no doubt was issued and executed under the honest belief that the seizure of the property was necessary to the safety of the Army, (though in point of fact, as it subsequently appeared, such necessity did not exist,) the Government is bound, by every principle of justice, to stand between him and all loss."

I

that, must be aware that no action of the Supreme Court will be had upon this case until long after the time to which the gentleman moves to postpone this matter shall have expired. In that view of the case, and inasmuch as the friends of the bill are willing it shall be so modified, as the rights of the Government upon one hand may be perfectly protected by the action of their very able Attorney General-and at the same time an investigation may be had in this matter-and, if possible, which presume can be done, the interests of the party who appeals here, Mr. Mitchell, may be protected, if this writ of error is intended to be seriously prosecuted in the Supreme Court, which will test the merits of the case, there can be no difficulty in staying the proceedings upon the judgment of the court of the State of Missouri. It seems, therefore, if the House will take such action upon this bill as to meet the views which have been stated by the gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. PHELPS,] justice would be done to every party, and the interests of the Government would be protected. The interests of this individual, whose services have been stated to be highly meritorious, will be protected, and there surely can be no objection by the Government to such a course. If upon an investigation upon the merits of this case, which will come up in the argument upon the writ of error, it shall turn out that there is error, and the

In the decision of the court, it stated that the seizure of property took place some distance north of the place where the battle of Sacramento was fought. It was at the time, however, when Colonel Doniphan, with about nine hundred volunteers, was proceeding upon his march to the city of Chihuahua, a city containing a population of from twenty to twenty-five thousand inhabitants. Whilst on this march he received information that the Mexicans had assembled in large force and were prepared to give battle. The information was true, and the battle of Sacramento was shortly after fought, in which nine hundred of our volunteers were engaged against more than four thou-judgment be reversed, there will be an end of the sand Mexicans. The traders and teamsters accompanying our army amounted to three hundred. They were organized by command of Colonel Doniphan into two companies, commanded by Captains Glasgow and Skillman, composing a battalion under the command of Colonel Owens, a trader from Missouri, who was killed in the battle of Sacramento.

The seizure of Harmony's goods was consummated when he was compelled by Colonel Mitchell to follow in the rear of the army, and when his teamsters were ordered (if the emergency should arise) to abandon the teams and whips, shoulder the rifle, and fight our enemies.

from

Anthem Michigan (Mr. STUART) will not prevail. If any relief is to be given Mitchell, it must be given speedily. I am willing to go as far as any man can go to protect the rights of the Government, and at the same time I ask that you protect the rights of the citizen. I am desirous of a full investigation of the question. I wish not to avoid it. I was importuned by my friends to shut out discussion. I do not wish it to be stated that Colonel Mitchell has called upon this House and the Congress of the United States to do an improper act.

Let me remark, that by the laws of our State, real estate can only be sold on execution during term time; and if the sheriff does not find sufficient real estate upon which to levy the execution, it would be his duty to levy upon personal property of the defendant, and that can be sold upon ten days' public notice. Harmony has the entire control of this judgment, and from this time forward no indulgence to Mitchell can be expected.

Mr. SEYMOUR. I wish to ask the gentleman from Missouri a question. If I understood him to say he would be satisfied if this bill could be so modified that the Attorney General of the United States, in the name of Mitchell, should be authorized to prosecute the suit in the Supreme Court, and also obtain a stay of execution upon the judgment in Missouri?

Mr. PHELPS. Yes, sir; I said this. I am satisfied if we could, by our act here, substitute

matter, and the case will be decided upon its merits. The only suspicion that has arisen in reference to this matter, it strikes me, has arisen from the fact, that the individual whose property was originally taken is said to have been willing to have received a far smaller amount in satisfaction of damages than has been now recovered against Colonel Mitchell. Every gentleman who is acquainted with the manner in which these matters are presented and disposed of here, and with the rules of evidence which would apply to cases of this kind in an investigation, according to the strict rules of law in court, will see at once that this might well exist, and an individua! might be willing to take upon the immediate action of the Government a smaller sum, which would cover about his outlay of expenditure upon these goods; whereas if he was driven into a court of justice and was obliged to defend his case, he would insist upon all that the rules of law would give him, and those would give him the full, the enhanced value of all these goods that were taken from him and destroyed by Colonel Mitchell.

A VOICE. They were not destroyed.

Mr. SEYMOUR. Whatever it may have been, they were taken out of his possession, and he lost the value of them at any rate. I hope the motion of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. STUART] will not prevail, and that the House will now reconsider the vote by which the bill has been ordered to a third reading, and that the amendment which has been indicated by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. PHELPS] will be adopted, and then complete justice can be done to all parties, and the rights of all secured.

Mr. HOUSTON. Is it in order to ask the previous question upon this motion to postpone? The SPEAKER. It is.

Mr. HOUSTON. Then I make such motion? Mr. PHELPS. I learn that the gentleman from Alabama asks for the previous question. I only desire to know whether it will extend further than the question to postpone?

The SPEAKER. The Chair decided the other day that the previous question did apply only to the question to postpone, which decision was sus

Mr. PHELPS. I desire to know what is the decision of the Chair now upon the subject-how far does it extend?

Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky. What will be the effect of the previous question?

The SPEAKER. It will bring the House to a direct vote; first upon the question of postponement, and if that fails, upon the reconsideration

of the bill.

Mr. MARSHALL. I appeal to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. HOUSTON] to withdraw his call for the previous question. I promise to say all I have to say within five minutes.

Mr. HOUSTON. I am very anxious to dispose of the bill and proceed to other business. I will, however, withdraw the call for the previous question for five minutes in favor of the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. MARSHALL.]

Mr. MARSHALL. I now ask that the substitute for the bill, which I have sent to the Chair, may be read.

It was read by the Clerk, as follows:

That it shall be the duty of the Attorney General of the United States to prosecute the writ of error pending before the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of D. D. Mitchell vs. M. X. Harmony, without cost to the plaintiff in error.

Be it enacted, &c., That the Attorney General be and he is hereby directed to cause such chancery, or other proceedings, to be instituted in the name of D. D. Mitchell vs. M. X. Harmony, or his assignees, before the proper court at St. Louis, Missouri, as shall stay proceedings upon a certain judgment at law, in the name of said Harmony against said Mitchell, until the rendition of an opinion by the Supreme Court of the United States upon the writ of error aforesaid, and it shall be the duty of said Secretary of the Treasury to cause such security to be entered by the United States as shall indemnify and save said Mitchell harmless against said judgment.

Be it enacted, That whenever the Attorney General of the United States shall certify to the Secretary of the Treasury, that the writ of error in the cause aforesaid has failed, or that no further steps can be taken at law or in equity, whereby to avoid the payment of said judgment in favor of said Harmony, rendered in the State of Missouri, then it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury, and he is hereby authorized to liquidate and satisfy said judgment, damages, and costs, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.

Mr. M. continued. If I can have the ear of the House for five minutes I think I can make the merits of this substitute understood.

A VOICE. We understand them already. There is no need for explanation.

Mr. MARSHALL. The gentleman says there is no need for explanation. If my amendment covers, then, the proper view of the case, I hope I shall be allowed to offer it, and that it will be adopted. I will state that I have looked into the record in relation to this case, and for one, I will not vote for the payment of this money so long as there is a chance for reversing the judgment in relation to that case. I hope the motion to postpone will be voted down, unless the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. STUART] will consent to with

draw it.

Mr. STUART. I have no objection to withdrawing my motion to postpone, if the gentleman's object can be effected by it. If I understand the order of business-my motion being withdrawn-the question will recur upon the motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill was ordered to be read a third time; and should that prevail the gentleman's substitute will be in order. The SPEAKER. The substitute will then be in order.

Mr. STUART. Then I will withdraw the motion to postpone.

The question was then taken, and the House agreed to reconsider the vote by which the bill was ordered to be read a third time.

Mr. MARSHALL. I now offer my amendment as a substitute for the bill.

The SPEAKER. The Chair supposes, before the amendment is received, the question must be taken on reconsidering the vote ordering the main question to be put.

Mr. HALL. Can the amendment not be offered by unanimous consent?

The SPEAKER. By unanimous consent the entire action under the previous question may be considered.

There was no objection, and the amendment was then declared to be in order.

Mr. HEBARD. I believe the question now pending is upon the adoption of the substitute.

Mr. OLDS. Is debate in order? The SPEAKER. It is.

Mr. HALL. I thought the previous question| had been called upon this amendment.

The SPEAKER. So it had, but by unanimous consent it was set aside in order to admit the amendment.

Mr. HALL. I understood that unanimous consent was given for the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. MARSHALL] to introduce his amendment merely, but not to interfere with the previous question.

The SPEAKER. The Chair did not so understand it. The Chair understood the proposition, and so propounded it, that unanimous consent should be given to remove the operation of the previous question altogether.

Mr. HEBARD. I was proceeding to remark, that if I understood the purport of the substitute I should not be in favor of it. So far as I understand the nature of the claim, the great question with me is as to its amount, and I desire a further opportunity of inquiring into it before it is finally acted upon. The effect of the substitute, as I understand it, will be to have a writ of error prosecuted for the purpose of showing whether or not the judgment of the court below was made up properly or not. It was stated the other day by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. HAVEN,] that from a conversation he had with Judge Nelson, he learned the fact that the question litigated in the circuit court before him was in relation to the validity of the claim, bu not in relation to the amount, but that the amount was agreed upon by the parties. It was stated upon this floor the other day when this bill was before the House, that the plaintiff in the suit, Mr. Harmony, had offered to take $30,000 for his claim, and the fact was not contradicted. Now, if this be true, I desire to know why a judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for $95,000? I have looked into the schedule prepared in the case to see if I could find any reason for this judgment. I find that the estimates for the property taken on the occasion to which it relates are made out in round numbers. It consisted for the most part of what is called bleached shirting, and the amount is made out in round numbers at the rate of thirty-one and one quarter cents per yard. The quality of the cloth is not in any way shown, but it is to be presumed that

Mr. PHELPS. I think I can explain in regard to that matter. The value of the property, established by the testimony taken in the case, was $95,000, and was based upon the price the goods were worth in that country at the time and place they were taken. That testimony shows the value of the goods, with the interest upon the amount, up to the time of the rendition of the judgment.

Mr. HEBARD. I can only say in relation to it, that I have the documentary evidence before me, and it does not bear out any such conclusions. I will state the facts which are contained in this document. It says the property consisted mostly of unbleached shirting cotton, estimated at thirty-one and a quarter cents per yard. Now, that is a species of merchandise of which all of us know something. We know that the article which is here estimated at thirty-one and a quarter cents per yard, is worth from eight to ten cents.

A VOICE. Less than that.

Mr. HEBARD. I am aware that it can be bought for much less than that, but I did not choose to put it at the lowest prices. I presume this was an article which could be bought for six and a quarter cents per yard. Now, what will be the actual expenses of transporting these goods from the place in which they were purchased to Chihuahua, I will not pretend to say. I do not know; but I do not believe the cost of transportation would equal the price at which the cloth was purchased. come to this conclusion, and I do not believe any gentleman upon this floor can come to any other, from the proof furnished. This $95,000, then, must come from some other source than this property; for even at the price at which it is estimated, it will only amount to about $80,000. I say, I do not believe a single gentle. man in this House can come to any other conclusion than that this property was valued at more than one hundred per cent. above its actual value. And before I can vote to have this claim allowed and paid, as I said before, I want to know upon

what ground, upon what basis, a judgment was rendered against Colonel Mitchell for $95,000? Perhaps it can be explained; but I am not willing to vote this money until I can have some proof, other than that which I now possess, that it ought to be paid. I think some investigation should be made into the matter. If I am correctly informed, Colonel Mitchell made an agreement in relation to the amount of damages to which Harmony was entitled.

Mr. PHELPS. The gentleman is mistaken in regard to the facts. Colonel Mitchell made no agreement in regard to the damages. The testimony shows the amount of damages, and the judgment was rendered, I believe, upon the evidence of three witnesses, who testify that the price which was allowed was the price at which the property was valued in Chihuahua at the time it was taken.

Mr. HEBARD. I should like to know of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. PHELPS] where this testimony was taken, because the facts he states do not corroborate those which I have before me.

Mr. PHELPS The testimony was taken by virtue of a commission issued from the circuit court of the Southern district of the State of New York. A portion of it was taken in the State of Missouri, a portion in New York city, and a part of it, the testimony of one witness, either in New Mexico or Chihuahua. I speak of the testimony which was before the court, and not of that which was taken in support of Harmony's memorial to Congress for relief.

Mr. HEBARD. I was proceeding in my argument upon the assumption that the statement of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. HAVEN,] in relation to the manner in which the judgment was rendered, was correct; and in connection with that, I took occasion to refer to the value put upon his own goods by Mr. Harmony at the time he presented his claim to Congress for relief.

Mr. PHELPS. I will state the testimony of John Gracia, who was sworn as a witness upon the trial in the city of New York. He states he is acquainted with the traders, and familiar with the quality and price of goods in the Mexican trade. His statement is merely in relation to the value of some particular goods. The testimony of Mr. Low shows that the value of the goods, and of the mules and wagons taken near El Paso, was $75,263 94, estimated according to the price there. That the interest from the 10th of February, 1847, to the 10th of September, 1850, at the rate of seven per cent., is $19,129 50, making in the aggregate $95,393 49. The whole judgment was for some $90,000.

Mr. HEBARD. The explanation of the gentleman has not relieved my mind upon the point raised by me in the slightest degree. Now, this case does not show upon what ground the estimate of the value of that property was founded. By looking at the schedule, it will be seen, as I stated before, that it is made up mainly of cotton goods, unbleached shirtings, put by the bale, at the price of thirty-one and a quarter cents per yard. Now, I wish to know upon what basis, either of the witness or of the claimant himself, he puts a price of thirty-one and a quarter cents to cloth of that description, which every gentleman who is acquainted with the article, knows can be purchased anywhere in the United States at from six to ten cents per yard. Now, I have not much more to say upon this claim, but I wish to know upon what ground such a judgment was rendered

in the court of New York.

Mr. PHELPS. In relation to the value of this property, permit me to read an extract from a deposition taken in the city of Chihuahua, before William A. Hereford, Commissioner. It is from the deposition of José Maria Uria Naffarondo:

"To the sixth interrogatory he saith: That such goods as the plaintiff left at Chihuahua could have been sold and did sell in the city and State of Chihuahua, in and for several months previous to the month of February, 1847, at the following prices: the bleached shirting at thirty-one and a quarter cents per vara, the prints at thirty-one and a quarter cents per vara, the brown shirting at thirty-one and a quarter cents per vara." The prices of various other articles are also given by this witness.

The witness testifies to the price of these goods in the month of February, in the city of Chihuahua, within whose limits those goods were taken. He further testifies that he examined those goods at the time they were there in the custody of those

troops, and he also made an inventory of them in the month of February or March, 1847. The number of yards is specified. It shows the number of bales, and the number of yards in each bale of the various articles taken. The prices of the other articles were furnished by the testimony of Aranjo and Oliver.

Mr. HEBARD. It has turned out as I supposed it would when investigating the testimony, and it conforms to the supposition I had before. The testimony of these witnesses, whose names 1 would not attempt to pronounce, says that this kind of property, of which I am speaking, has been sold in Chihuahua for thirty-one and a quarter cents per yard.

Mr. PHELPS. The gentleman misunderstands me. The testimony was "that such goods have been sold," not that these goods have been sold.

Mr. HEBARD. The gentleman misunderstood me. I so stated, or intended to. What these goods could have been sold for is not known. He only says that goods like these could have been sold for that price. Now, this whole matter shows most conclusively to my mind that there has been an entire fictitious value placed upon these articles for some purpose; whether for the benefit of Har mony, or whether Colonel Mitchell is to share in the enormous profits to be made upon them out of the Government in case this judgment is paid by it, I do not undertake to say; but I undertake to say that there is an attempt here to do that which, if successful, will be an enormous swindle, in my judgment, upon the Government. These goods are valued at a price three or four times the cost of them here.

Now look at this matter a little further. There is some other property besides these cotton goods; and all this property together, estimated at the exorbitant and unreasonable price put upon it by the claimant, amounts to only about $62,000. There were a few mules also taken, and those he esti mates at $100 a piece. That is a kind of property of which I know little. He also claims, for damages done to the mules and wagons while in the charge of Colonel Doniphan, the round sum of $5,000. How many there were, and what the damage was, does not appear. The damage which he claims is stated to be seventy-five per cent. upon the whole value, and the whole value is at the rate of about $100 each; in other words, he claims for damages done these mules, $75 each.

Another item in this bill is, expenses for his men and animals while in the charge of Colonel Doni. phan, $5,000 in round numbers, without going into details of what those expenses consisted. He has charged for thirteen months, $6000; or for six months extra, $4,000 more. Now, sir, take his own bills which he has made out, take the estimates he has put upon his own property, and take the interest upon it-it all amounts to only a little more than $87,000. And deduct from this $5,000, which is less duties-I do not understand what it means it leaves the whole gross amount at $82,000.

Mr. PHELPS. In New Mexico and Chihuahua, they charged duties upon their goods by the wagon load. They charged the specific duty of $500 upon every wagon load of goods introduced into New Mexico, without regard to their value. This duty upon ten wagon loads would amount to $5,000, which Harmony did not have to pay.

Mr. HEBARD. The matter of duty did not disturb me at all. What I want to know now is, upon what ground, and by what reason, and upon what proof there should have been decreed by the court a judgment for $95,000-some $13,000 more than Harmony claimed of Congress? All that I know of this case is from an examination I made of it a few days ago when it came up for investigation. I feel no sort of interest in it, and have no feeling about it; but when sums as large as this are proposed to be drawn from the Treasury,! choose to know that there is, at least, no fraud and no fraudulent means made use of to swell up amount. I hope, therefore, that before this amendment shall have been adopted, the bill will be sent back to some committee, or left in some shape by which there can be made a further investigation and report of the facts upon which this claim is

based for our action.

that

Mr. PHELPS. Idemand the previous question. The previous question received a second, and the main question was ordered to be put; which main question was first on the amendment.

troduce his resolution and his bill without discus

The question was then taken upon ordering the amendment to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time; and it was agreed to.

The bill was then read the third time, and the question now being, "Shall the bill pass?"

Mr. PHELPS demanded the previous question. Mr. MEACHAM. I wish to understand the form of the bill as it is now amended.

The SPEAKER. The bill will be read for the information of the House.

The bill was then read through by the Clerkbeing the substitute of Mr. MARSHALL, as published in a preceding column.

The call for the previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered to be put.

Mr. GOODENOW demanded the yeas and nays upon the passage of the bill; which were not ordered.

The bill was then read a third time and passed. Mr. PHELPS moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed, and to lay the motion to reconsider upon the table; which latter motion was agreed to.

BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS.

Mr. THOMPSON. I offer the following resolution:

Resolved, That this day be appropriated, to the exclusion of all other business, to the call of States, beginning with the State of Maine, for resolutions and bills of which previous notice has been given, and upon which no debate shall be allowed.

Mr. ORR objected.

Mr. THOMPSON moved a suspension of the rules for the purpose of enabling him to introduce the resolution just indicated.

The question was then taken-there being upon a division-ayes 80, noes 42.

Mr. FOWLER called for tellers, which were ordered.

Mr. CARTTER. I wish to inquire whether the order proposed for calling the States in that resolution begins with the State last called, or goes back to the first?

The SPEAKER. It proposes to commence with the State of Maine.

Mr. DISNEY. I wish to be informed what State will be called, if we proceed to the regular

order of business?

The SPEAKER. The Chair is informed by the Clerk that South Carolina was last called.

Mr. DISNEY. How many States had been called up to that time?

The SPEAKER. The gentleman can count for himself.

Mr. BRENTON. I desire to say, in reference to this question

The SPEAKER. It is not debatable.

Mr. BRENTON. I do not wish to, but merely to present a question of order, and it is this: Whether this resolution does not suspend the standing rules of the House?

The SPEAKER. Certainly, if adopted. Mr. BRENTON. It is provided that no amendment to the rules shall be introduced without one day's previous notice being given.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will remember that by a special rule of the body, it is in order to move to suspend the rules of the House for particular purposes on Mondays, and only then. The Chair thinks that there can be no question in regard to the legitimacy of the resolution proposed.

Mr. BRENTON. Another point is, that the resolution provides that the Speaker shall commence with the State of Maine, whereas the rule requires that he shall commence where he left off at the last call.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state, for the information of the House and the gentleman, that if this resolution be adopted, it will, in his opinion, exclude the motion to supend the rules for this day, and this order of the House will be executed to the exclusion of all other business, which is the calling of the States for resolutions and for bills of which previous notice had been given, and upon which the House must decide without debate. That is the effect of the resolution.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. Then, as 1 understand, if this resolution is adopted, it commencing with Maine, allows every member to in

Mr. JOHNSON, of Arkansas. I wish to make an inquiry, if the Chair will answer, and I can get it in no other way: Whether, since the commencement of this Congress, the States have ever been called through?

The SPEAKER. They have not been. Mr. JOHNSON. Thus we go back always to the beginning, and some States never will be called. It is not right.

Mr. KING, of New York, demanded the yeas and nays.

Mr. ORR. Is it in order 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. The Chair thinks that it is not, while the motion is pending to suspend the rules-this being Monday, and that motion being in order. But the Chair further states that it would be in order to move to go into the Committee if there was not already pending a motion to suspend the rules for a different purpose.

The yeas and nays were then ordered. Mr. FLORENCE. If this motion is voted down, will it not be in order to call the States for resolutions, beginning at where the Speaker left off on the last day?

The SPEAKER. That will be the effect.

The question was then taken upon the suspension of the rules, and decided in the negative yeas 56, nays 121; as follow:

YEAS-Messrs. Willis Allen, John Appleton, William Appleton, Thomas H. Bayly, Beale, Bell, Bennett, Bissell, Breckinridge, Albert G. Brown, Busby, Chandler, Cobb, John G. Davis, Dawson, Dockery, Edmundson, Faulkner, Fitch, Florence, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Gamble, Gentry, Gorman, Hall, Hamilton, Hendricks, Houston, Howard, Thomas M. Howe, Ingersoll, Andrew Johnson, Lockhart, Mace, Humphrey Marshall, Mason, McCorkle, McDonald, McMullin, McNair, Andrew Parker, Penn, Porter, Price, Robbins, Schermerhorn, Skelton, Smith, Stanly, Thaddeus Stevens, Stone, St. Martin, Stuart, Taylor, George W. Thompson, and Walsh-56.

NAYS-Messrs. Abercrombie, Allison, Averett, Babcock, Barrere, Bartlett, J. H. Boyd, Bragg, Brenton, Briggs, Brooks, G. H. Brown, Buell, Burrows, E. C. Cabell, Joseph Cable, L. D. Campbell, Thompson Campbell, Carter, Caskie, Chapman, Chastain, Churchwell, Clark, Cleveland, Clinginan, Colcock, Conger, Cottman, Culloni, Curtis, G. T. Davis, Dimmick, Disney, Doty, Durkee, Edgerton, Evans, Ewing, Ficklin, Floyd, Fowler, Freeman, H. M.

Fuller, Gaylord, Giddings, Gilmore, Goodenow, Green, Grey, Harper, Sampson W. Harris, Hascall, Haven, He bard, Henn, Hibbard, Holladay, Horsford, Thomas Y. How, Ives, Jackson, Jenkins, James Johnson, John Johnson, Robert W. Johnson, Daniel T. Jones, J. Glancy Jones, George G. King, Preston King, Kuhns, Kurtz, Landry, Edward C. Marshall, McLanahan, McQueen, Meacham, Miller, Molony, Henry D. Moore, John Moore, Morehead, Morrison, Murray, Nabers, Newton, Olds, Órr, Outlaw, Samuel W. Parker, Peaslee, Penniman, Perkins, Phelps, Rantoul, Riddle, Sackett, Savage, Schoolcraft, Schoonmaker, Scudder, Scurry, Smart, Benj. Stanton, Richard H. Stanton, Abr'm P. Stevens, Stratton, Benjamin Thomp son, Thurston, Townshend, Wallace, Ward, Washburn, Watkins, Wells, Addison White, Alexander White, Wilcox, Wildrick, Woodward, and Yates-121. So the rules were not suspended-two thirds not voting therefor.

SALES OF SCHOOL LANDS.

Mr. BROWN, of Mississippi, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill, of which previous notice had been given, authorizing the Legislature of the State of Mississippi to sell the lands heretofore appropriated for the use of schools in that State, and to ratify and approve the sales already made.

It was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

Mr. HALL. I move that the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. HOUSTON. I ask the gentleman from Missouri whether he will not yield the floor until I can make a motion to postpone for a day or two, or indefinitely, the special order that is now up for discussion before the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, for the purpose of taking up the deficiency bill?

Mr. HALL. I will not yield to any such proposition as that. I think this bill is a matter of more importance than the deficiency bill, a great deal.

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

[A message was then received from the Senate at the hands of ASBURY DICKENS, Esq., their Secretary.]

|

HOMESTEADS.

The House accordingly resolved itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. HIBBARD 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.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. FITCH] is entitled to the floor.

Mr. FITCH said, that if, upon examining the bill under consideration, he should find it sufficiently guarded to prevent frauds, his vote would be cast in its favor.

He then proceeded to review the various subjects referred to in the President's message, and said that in so doing he should not attempt or wish to intimate any charge against the President, or anything against his character as a citizen or a man, neither would he charge him with corruption. He respected Mr. Fillmore as a man and an officer, but considered many of his acts and recommendations as the result of erroneous opinions and of a policy injurious to the public.

He then alluded to our foreign policy, as set forth in the message, and thought that the President correctly adhered to the doctrine of non-intervention. He, however, condemned the course pursued by the Administration in relation to the invasion of Cuba, and censured the President for his outlawry proclamation, which withdrew all protection in advance. There could be no doubt that had the President insisted that all of the citizens who were embarked in that enterprise who might be captured should have a fair trial, such as existing treaties entitled them to, and many lives and much suffering might have been avoided. Great Britain was never known to abandon her citizens, but always insisted upon the fulfillment of treaty stipulations, and it was because that country did protect the lives and rights of her citizens that her flag was so universally respected. He did not justify the invasion of Cuba, but desired to see it defeated.

He next reviewed that part of the message relating to our domestic policy, and said that to that portion of it which related to the compromise he took no exception. It breathed a spirit which offered every desirable assurance of domestic tranquillity and the perpetuity of our Government. The compromise having been passed, surely no right-minded citizen could desire to see reproduced all that excitement which accompanied its discussion and the questions connected with it. The Democrats of the North had everywhere, through their press, their conventions, their candidates, (State and Presidential,) with exceptions so few and far between as to be insignificant, not only evinced their willingness to abide by the compromise, but declared their intention to sustain it. But how was it with the Whigs? Some opposed the compromise, and others lent it but a lukewarm support.

Mr. F. then referred to that portion of the message which relates to the tariff and finances, and said that the President made no urgent appeal. for a modification of the tariff, for he looked to little else than a change of duties from ad valorem to specific. When it was taken into consideration that this lukewarm recommendation came from a man who was the principal advocate of the tariff of 1842, it spoke volumes for the tariff of 1846. It might well be questioned whether the President's views had not undergone a change, for he evinced too much good sense in other matters still to hold the antiquated tariff opinions of that period.

In reference to the finances, they appeared to be in a very prosperous condition, and the predictions of the Whigs of deficiencies under the present tariff were classed among the predictions of the prophet Baal. He then referred to the estimates of deficiencies made by the Secretaries under the administration of General Taylor and Mr. Fillmore, and said that instead of deficiencies surpluses have always occurred. He contrasted the views of Mr. Corwin on the tariff, and spoke of the large expenditures of the present Administration, declaring that it sought to cast its own pecuniary malfeasance upon the preceding Administration.

[See Appendix for Mr. Fitch's speech.]
Mr. WILCOX next obtained the floor.

Mr. NABERS. With the permission of my colleague, as it is growing late, I move that the committee rise.

Which 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.

ARMY APPROPRIATION BILL.

Mr. HOUSTON. I will ask the House to allow me to report the Army appropriation bill, which I have had in my desk for some two weeks, in order that it may be printed.

There was no objection.

Mr. HOUSTON, from the Committee of Ways and Means, reported "A bill making appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending 30th of June, 1853;" which was read a first and second time by its title, referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and ordered to be printed.

IOWA ON THE COMPROMISE MEASURES.

Mr. CLARK. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to allow me to introduce joint resolutions from the Legislature of the State of Iowa respecting the compromise.

There was no objection.

Mr. CLARK. I believe, by the rules and custom of the House, it will be my privilege to submit a few remarks explanatory of the resolutions. I will ask the Chair whether it is not in order, by the rules, when a resolution is offered briefly to state its contents?

The SPEAKER. It is. The gentleman has that right.

Mr. HOUSTON. I do not wish to interfere with the remarks the gentleman from Iowa proposes to make at all; but for the sake of a precedent I would ask him if it would not be better to send up the resolutions and to discuss them upon the proposition to print? Until the proposition to print is made, the gentleman, I suppose, cannot be permitted to discuss the resolutions or their

contents.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Iowa is only entitled, as the question now stands, to a brief statement of the contents of the resolutions. Mr. CLARK. I move that the resolutions be printed.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE called for the reading. The resolutions were then read as follow: Preamble and resolutions in reference to the compromise measures passed by the Congress of the United States: Whereas, The Congress of the United States at its last session adopted a series of acts known as the compromise measures, and whereas there has been manifested throughout portions of the North and South a disposition to set a portion of said acts at defiance, and thereby declare an open resistance to the power of the Government and its laws: and whereas, in view of our duty to the Government and for the purpose of showing to all portions of the Union our firm and unyielding devotion to its cause and its institutions, we deem proper to make some public demonstration of our Views and feelings: therefore

Resolved, That in the opinion of this General Assembly, "the Constitution of the United States is a compact, a fundamental treaty," and that in order to our continued prosperity and happiness, that the Constitution and the laws of the land must be respected and obeyed.

Resolved, That we will give no countenance or aid to those North, or South, who set up " their own rule of conduct" in opposition to, and as being higher than the Constitution; and while we would give the largest latitude to thought, speech, and action, yet such an avowal we regard as meriting unmixed condemnation; its inevitable tendency being hazardous to that union which we hereby declare ourselves bound to maintain by any and all means in our

power.

Resolved, That whatever may be the opinions of individuals as to the policy or details of said compromise measures, yet it is the duty of every good citizen to conform to their requisitions and carry them out in good faith; seeking their modification or repeal, if such should be necessary, in the manner contemplated by the Constitution and laws.

Resolved, That the Constitution should be our guide, and in questions of doubt we should look for its interpretation to the judicial decisions of the tribunal which was established to expound it, and to the usages of the GovernDient sanctioned by the acquiescence of the country;" that all its provisions are equally binding; that it is the will of the people expressed in the most solemn form; that no pretense of utility, no honest conviction even of what might be expedient can justify the assumption of any power not granted, or the violation of its provisions;" and that we deem it our first duty not to "invade its requirements or nullify its cominands."

Resolved, That the Secretary of State is hereby directed

to forward a copy of these resolutions to the Governors of

each State and Territory, and to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress.

APPROVED, January 23, 1851.

Mr. CLARK, However reluctant I may be to detain the House with any remarks of my own, I think it due to the source whence these resolutions come to submit a few reflections respecting their character. I suppose that it can hardly fail to be matter of interest to know what the opinions of the people of a State are respecting great subjects which have agitated and divided the public mind. The language of these resolutions is, that it is the duty of every good citizen to conform to the requisitions of the acts of compromise, and to carry them out in good faith. Here is a principle-a moral principle worthy of the consideration of all, worthy to be enforced upon every American mind, until its force shall be felt by all, and none shall deny its truth. It is said that the acts which emanate from the National Legislature rest upon the Constitution as their foundation, and this is undoubtedly true; but another question arises of no small importance, and that is, upon what does the Constitution itself rest? It is a superstructureit is but a created thing. What underlies its foundations and sustains it? It is that principle which is set forth in these resolutions, namely, good faith— that good faith which metes out to all their rights the full measure of their legal, specific, and covenanted rights. It has been often said, that every system of laws rests upon something external for its support. This is unquestionably true, and we know what that foreign thing is. In almost all other Governments except this, it is the soldier's arm, and the bayonet wielded by the soldier, and both wielded by the will of a single mind. But it is different here. The very nature of this Government is such as to repel the principle of force in its support and execution. It is an emanation of the will of the people; and the very idea of force applied to the freedom of will is both unreasonable and contradictory. What are the enactments of law but the will of Government?-and what is the will of Government but the will of the people? And, if there be opposing interests-as there always will be in so great a country-the safety of the whole requires the sacred upholding of those laws which embrace and grant relative protection to them all-and this is to be found in the observance of good faith on the part of each section towards the other. And when this shall be obliterated and destroyed, there is no sure foundation upon which such a Government as this can rest. Force in a Government like this is to be employed only against its enemies, which are never supposed to be of its own household." It is true that you may put down a rebellion like that of Shay's, in Massachusetts, by military force. You may quell an insurrection like that which existed in Pennsylvania, denominated the whisky insurrection, by military force. But whenever the military force of this Government shall be arrayed against the military force of a State Government, and a drop of blood shall be spilt or a blow struck, there will be wounds created so deep that no time can heal, resentments so flagrant that no grace can pardon, and ruin so wide-spread that no wisdom can re

construct.

I believe there is such a thing as morality of law; not that morality alone which determines the

character of law, but that which commands obedience to the provisions of law. It arises upon the enactment of law, it is coextensive with it, it subsists with it; and from its obligations there is no escape. It is true that the casuist and carper may conceive that they can ask hard questionsas to what shall be done in case Congress shall enact laws that are flagitious and immoral in their character. I answer, that if the supposition were possible, it is the duty of every citizen to obey

Mr. HEBARD, (interrupting.) I rise to inquire whether any question is before the House? The SPEAKER. A motion to print.

Mr. CABELL, of Florida. The resolutions have never been received.

Mr. HEBARD. I would inquire whether the resolutions had been received?

The SPEAKER. They had been received by unanimous consent.

Mr. CABELL. They were only read for information.

The SPEAKER. I am informed it was the understanding of my predecessor, who tempora

rily filled the chair, [Mr. RICHARDSON,] that they were received by the House.

Mr. CLARK, (resuming.) I was proceeding to say that there might be those who might ask questions which they would conceive hard to be answered. I know but one rule of action, and that is universal for every individual, for every mind. There is no such thing as rightful resist ance to law, while law is law. To contend for any other doctrine would be to make war upon al law, and to reduce law to anarchy, and nothing else; for that is no law which some feel bound in conscience to obey, and others think they may rightfully disobey, and do disobey. It is easy

enough to float smoothly on when no adverse interests are met, when no prejudices are stirred; but when, in the course of the rightful government of law, these obstacles are met, what is it that is to cleave them down and suffer you to progress? It is nothing short of that good faith which is set forth in these resolutions, and which guaranties to all their rights according to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution; and it is precisely this which has made this country stand out in unr valed individuality before the world and upon the page of history; and it is precisely for the lack of this that so many nations, struggling for freedom, have fallen so far in arrear of the best hopes and expectations of those who would have cheered them on to the proud position which we occupy.

There was no good faith on the part of the Gre cian States. A spirit of rivalry and selfishness overrode and destroyed their confederation. They first destroyed themselves, and were then des troyed by a common enemy. They lacked that good faith which, as the common bond of union, as the great fountain of preservation, might have saved them from the conquering Roman, Had Poland been united in her counsels and her lead

ers, I am not sure that it could have been proved to this day that she might not have successfully resisted the Russian and the Austrian together. And what has been the bane of poor Hungary? It has been more the want of devotion to one another; more the existence of intestine, than foreign foes. And what of poor, pitiable, unfortunate, despised France? The ambition of an unprincipled leader, and the magic of a mere name, have trampled under foot the good faith of the Constitution, and removed her at a greater distance from constitutional freedom than she ever was before. It is well nigh as impossible to up root the institutions and destroy the nationality of a people who are bound to each other by the fel lowship of good faith, as it is to tear asunder the everlasting hills. We have experienced scenes of excitement and trouble here. We have seen danger in the prospective, and we have shrunk from those scenes. Yet they have passed by, and not

a stone has been removed from the foundation, nor scarcely a tile from the roof; and the result is to be found in one single fact, and that is-obedience to law.

But, perhaps, it may be inquired if the people of the State whence I come need the cold and inperious teachings of duty to cause them to submit to the enactments of law? I would answer, that is true only in limited circles. And gentlemen will be prepared to believe the truth of what I state, always been found in the course of public duty, when they know that the people of lowa have councils, or marked her public course. She has and that no political heresy has stained her public trod in the same path in which the fathers trod. In those paths she delights to walk, and in thera she will continue to walk. She has not taken for her guidance the "higher law" doctrine, falsely so called, "which leads to bewilder and dazzles to blind." But the higher law of truth she delights to honor, and this is that law:

for

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, there is no power but of God; the powers that be are of dained of God.

"Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation-for rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou, then, not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise

of the same."

We all know that among the measures known as the compromise measures, that denominated the fugitive slave law presented the most difficulty. I would not here touch any string which could vi brate to discord, and I hope that I shall not do so. but perhaps I ought in candor to say, that our peo

ple are no admirers of the special institutions of the South, but they are willing that the people of the South should manage their own affairs in their own way. We do not seek to dictate to them; we do not seek to bring them under tutelage to us. Our people have learned obedience to law and social duty. In the midst of those great principles where they have learned to forbear to say to their neighbor, "Stand by thyself, for I am holier than thou"-where they have learned to forbear to make themselves "busy bodies in other men's matters"-where they have learned to reject "profane and old wives' fables," and where they have learned to yield assent to the great truth that "the powers that be are ordained of God."

Sir, it is upon the broad platform of the Constitution that we meet our brethren from the other side of a certain line, and we are willing to meet them upon that platform in all social duties, and in all duties which are required in our relations to the Constitution, to the law, and to the Government.

Mr. Speaker, with this feeling upon the part of our people, with this devotion to the Constitution and the Union as they exist, you will be prepared to believe that they were weighed down with feelings of anxiety and trouble, when but two years ago anarchy almost reigned in this high place of legislation; when cool, discriminating, far-seeing, patriotic Senators could not discover the soundings, or see even the twilight that comes before the morning.

But, sir, there was encouragement in the fact that these men stood as firm as the pillars which surround you that they abated nothing of their energy, nothing of their hope, nothing of their faith, nothing of their works. And at last the morning did come, and brought light with it; and we are willing to rejoice in that light. It may be that these remarks will be regarded as of little value by some, and perhaps they may be so regarded with propriety; but I cannot forbear to say that it is the fate of human conditions to be attended with murmurers. The best were not exempt from them. They were found in the midst of that people of ancient days, who above all others were favored by an overruling Providence-who were led by more than land-marks of human wisdom, by the " pillar of cloud and the pillar of fire"-and when in their necessities they were bounteously fed by a hand above them, without care and without labor, while yet the flesh was between their teeth they murmured. And when the law was being given them for their protection, and to better their condition, they preferred a calf to their God. And if all the minutiae of their history could be known, I think it possible they might have murmured even at the passage of the Red sea-murmured because the walls of water were not removed a little further apart, or because the spray was permitted to invest them, or because the stones were not all removed from the bottom. But, sir, we would rather take up the spirit of the song which was then and there sung: "right hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider are cast into the sea."

Mr. HEBARD. I would inquire if the question is on the motion to print? The SPEAKER. It is.

Mr. HEBARD. I move the previous question.

The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered.

The question was then taken, and the resolutions were ordered to be printed.

SCHOOL LANDS IN ALABAMA.

Mr. COBB. I have a set of resolutions from the Legislature of Alabama, relative to a grant of land for school purposes in lieu of valueless sixteenth sections in the said State, which I desire to present and have them referred to the appropriate committee. I will state that that committee has other similar resolutions under consideration, and I wish to have these presented now, and I wish the unanimous consent of the House for that purpose.

Mr. ORR. Does the gentleman want to make a speech upon them?

Mr. COBB. Certainly not. I only want to re

fer them.

There was no objection, and they were accordingly presented and referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

Mr. FLORENCE. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to submit certain resolutions passed by a meeting of soldiers of the war of 1812, in the city of Philadelphia, in regard to bounty land. I ask that they may be read. Objection was made.

On motion of Mr. ORR, the House then adjourned to twelve o'clock to-morrow.

NOTICE OF BILLS.

By Mr. HEBARD: A bill entitled "An act to grant bounty land to Zachariah Bossett, for services and privations in the revolutionary war."

Also, a bill entitled "An act to place the name of Garner Rix on the list of revolutionary pensioners."

PETITIONS, &c.

The following petitions, memorials, &c., were presented under the rule, and referred to the appropriate committees : By Mr. PORTER: The petition of Jeremiah J. West, of Callaway county, Missouri, for ermission to locate land warrants Nos. 27, 619, and 1092, issued in the names of Jane Chambers, John West, William West, Elizabeth Gendenier, Emily West, Jeremiah J. West, and Louisa Fields, as heirs of Jolly West, for the benefit of all the parties named therein.

By Mr. MILLER: The petition of sundry citizens of Missouri, praying Congress to permit them to locate other land in lieu of a certain sixteeth section.

By Mr. MOORE, of Louisiana: The petition of Henry McCallen and 76 other citizens of the parishes of Sabine and Natchitoches, praying for a change in a mail route.

Also, the petition of Mrs. Louise Pintard Screven, widow of Lieutenant Colonel R. B. Screven, asking a pension. By Mr. ALLISON: The petition of Richard Donaldson and 189 others, citizens of Washington county, Pennsylvania, for a law prohibiting the transportation and delivery of the mail on the Christian Sabbath or Lord's day.

Also, a similar petition signed by the Rev. Josiah Hutchman and 71 others, citizens of Lawrence county, Pennsyl

vania.

Also, two petitions signed by D. L. Morris and 71 others, citizens of Lawrence county, Pennsylvania, for a modification of the existing tariff laws, so as to more effectually protect the manufacturing interests of the country.

Also, two petitions signed by James Brice and G. V. Lawrence, ciuzens of Washington county, Pennsylvania, against the extention of the Woodworth patent.

Also, the petition of John Steen, of Beaver county, Pennsylvania, a soldier of the war of 1812, for a pension. Also, the petition of T. M.T. McKennon and 470 others, citizens of Pennsylvania, for protection to the Wheeling bridge.

By Mr. BELL: The petition of Frank Holliday and C. B. Millson, deputy marshals of Montgomery county, Ohio, praying for additional compensation in taking the census of said county.

Also, the petition of 100 citizens of Greene county, Ohio, praying for the establishment of a mail route from Spring Valley, in Greene county, Ohio, via Bell Brook to Dayton, Ohio, with letter of Department.

By Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky: The petition of Charles C. Carson as administrator of Captain James Dysart, deceased, for land and cominutation for full pay for services rendered in the war of the Revolution.

By Mr. CHANDLER: The petition of Charles F. Selbuld for money due him on timber contracts with the Navy Department, erroneously paid by order of that Department.

Also, the memorial of Benjamin T. Howe, and 77 other citizens of Philadelphia, asking for a renewal of the patent for Wordworth's planing machine.

Also, the remonstrance of Joseph R. Atkins, Stephen Webs, and 195 other carpenters of the city and county of Philadelphia, against the extension of the Wordworth patent for a planing machine, accompanied by an affidavit that the signers are all carpenters as set forth in the remonstrance.

By Mr. WELCH: The petition of 90 citizens of Washington county, Ohio, praying that the bridges of the Wheeling and Belmont Company may be established as post

roads.

By Mr. BISSELL: The memorial of Mrs. Rosana Sowards praying for a pension.

By Mr. ROBBINS: The petition of Samuel Potter, and 69 other citizens of the county of Philadelphia, asking Con

gress to pass an act for the extension of the Woodworth

patent.

Also, the joint resolution of the Legislature of the State of Pennsylvania instructing their Senators and Representatives to oppose every measure to establish a United States Mint in the city of New York.

By Mr. T. M. HOWE: The petition of Samuel Ashman, P. B. Barbeau. Robert R. Livingston, and others, praying for a beacon light on Round Island, near the entrance of the river St. Marie, Michigan.

Also, the remonstrance of William Wilkins, John B. Guthrie, Thomas Scott, and 500 other citizens of Alleghany county, Pennsylvania, against the renewal of the Woodworth patent.

Also, the memorial of John Grier, and others, of Alleghany county, Pennsylvania, praying for the construction of a canal at the Falls of the river St. Marie, Michigan. Also, the petition of J. Harrow Foster, and 600 other citizens of Western Pennsylvania, praying Congress to declare the forcible intervention of one State in the internal affairs of another State to be a violation of the public law of the world."

Also, the petition of Matthew McDonald, a citizen of Pennsylvania, for an allowance of $220 15, alleged to be due him on an equitable settlement for work performed for the Government.

By Mr. BENNETT: The remonstrance of John A. Collin and 250 other citizens of Broome county, New York, against the renewal or extension of the Woodworth patent. By Mr. CURTIS: The petition of Archibald Merriman,

of Crawford county, Pennsylvania, an old soldier, praying for a pension.

By Mr. SUTHERLAND: The memorial of the Chamber of Commerce of the city of New York, in relation to the tonnage duty on the vessels of France and of the United States in the ports of each other, and recommending that the 5th article of our treaty with France be so altered that the vessels of each nation shall pay no higher tonnage duties in the ports of the other than the vessels of France and of the United States may pay in their own ports, respectively. By Mr. BUELL: The remonstrance of 70 citizens of New York, against the renewal of the Woodworth patent. By Mr. SCUDDER: The petition of Timothy G. Cothin, Charles Gunnell, William F. Drew, and 283 others, citizens of New Bedford, Massachusetts, in favor of the extension of the Woodworth patent.

By Mr. MACE: The memorial of Nathaniel Ingles, Allen Barnes, and 40 others, citizens of Carroll and White counties, Indiana, praying for the passage of a law prohibiting all persons in the employ of the Government from transacting business on the Sabbath.

By Mr. PARKER, of Indiana: The petition of James Smith, William H. Vanneman, and 121 others, citizens of Wayne county, Indiana, praying that the Woodworth pat ent be not extended; that no act be passed legalizing the reissue of the patent upon the amended specification of 1845; and no general law for the relief of patentees, which shall enable a particular patentee to crush all others by a single suit.

By Mr. SCHERMERHORN: The remonstrance of Alfred Hoyt and others, of Monroe county, New York, against the further extension of the Woodworth patent.

By Mr. McLANAHAN: The memorial of Mrs. Sarah M. Smead, of Carlisle, Pennsylvania, widow of Captain Raphael C. Smead, deceased, late of the fourth regiment of the United States artillery, praying for a continuation of her pension of $20 per month, for the services of her deceased husband.

IN SENATE.
TUESDAY, March 9, 1842.

Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. M. BUTLER.
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS.

A message was received from the President of the United States, transmitting to Congress a dispatch addressed to the Secretary of State by the Minister of the United States at Mexico, and the papers therein referred to, relative to the cemetery which has been constructed in the neighborhood of that city, as a place of sepulture for the remains of the officers and soldiers of the United States who died or were killed in that vicinity during the late war, and for such citizens of the United States as may hereafter die there. Also, a copy of the report of the agent who was sent for the purpose of superintending the work, from which it appears that $2,500 or $3,000 are required in addition to the amount already appropriated by act of Congress, to carry the object of that appropriation into full effect. The message was read, and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

A message was also received from the President of the United States, transmitting a letter from the Governor of the Territory of Minnesota, with the statements to which it refers, of the disbursements up to the 1st of January last, of the money appropriated by the act approved June 11, 1850, for the erection of public buildings in that Territory; which was read, and referred to the Committee on Finance.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. laid before the Senate a copy of the revised statutes of the Territory of Minnesota, passed at the second session of the Legislative Assembly, commencing January 1, 1851; which was referred to the Committee on Territories.

Also, a report of the Secretary of the Treasury, made in compliance with a resolution of the Senate, and accompanied by a copy of a report of a geological exploration of California, by Joseph Gritzner; which was read, and referred to the Committee on Finance.

PETITIONS, ETC.

Mr. DAVIS presented two memorials of shipowners, merchants, and other citizens of Massachusetts, praying that further aid may be extended to Collins's line of steam-ships; which were referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

Also, the petition of a committee of the New England Historic Geneological Society at Boston, praying that copies of the Journals and documents of Congress may be furnished for the use of that Association; which was referred to the Committee on the Library.

Also, the petition of Edward Everett and others, praying that the New England Historic Geneological Society, at Boston, may be furnished with copies of the Journals and documents of Congress; which was referred to the Committee on the Library.