« ForrigeFortsett »
sel that should sail for the United States. cause of your meeting me at Ryde.”
Deponent represents to Henry, “That England was his legitimate Government; that he would render himself the most odious of all characters by betraying it; that his (the deponent's) Government had treated him harshly, and that he then labored under its displeasure, but no consideration should induce him to act against it; that we must not resent a parent's injuries; tells him to have patience, and wait for his reward.” Henry then pleaded in his justification the wrongs of his native country—Ireland—inflicted by the British Government.
Henry came down to Washington, and stopped at Tomlinson's, where deponent saw him. He afterwards removed to Georgetown, to the house of one Davis, an auctioneer, where the deponent visited him every day, and found him always occupied. Deponent waited for his disclosures, not having any disposition to pry into his secrets; but Henry was entirely silent, and incessantly sighing very deeply. On the day of General Blount's funeral, deponent took Henry down to Alexandria, in expectation that he might communicate his projects; but he was still reserved. After dinner they returned, and while in the carriage, Henry tells deponent “that he has great confidence in him; that he (deponent) has been here some time, and asks his opinion of Mr. Monroe.” Deponent answered that he was very little acquainted with anybody, but thought Mr. Monroe a most virtuous and respectable man.
Deponent remained several days without hearing anything more, until one morning at 7 o'clock, Henry came into his apartment and said—“Crillon you must sell me St. Martial,” [an estate of the deponent's in Lebeur, near the Spanish frontier;] “you have the title papers with you. My name will be rescued from oblivion by living near Crillon, the habitation of your ancestors, and of a man who has been my friend.” Deponent answered that he had no objection; and, if Henry on seeing the property was not satisfied, he would give orders to his agent in France to cancel the bargain. The conveyance was accordingly made. Henry left deponent, when Mr. Brent, to whom Henry was not introduced, came into the deponent's apartment. About this time, deponent received four anonymous threatening letters, and was advised by his friends that he was surrounded by spies; but he told them that he had nothing to fear—that he was “sans peur et sans reproche.” By one of these letters I was advised to leave the city before 12 o'clock, as a person had just arrived from London with orders to arrest me.
Meanwhile rumors circulated very generally to the deponent's prejudice, and he was under the necessity of vindicating his character, and of correcting the author of those reports.
The Message of the President gave the deponent the first intelligence of the true state of the transaction.
Henry told the deponent that a Mr. Gilvary, or Gillivray, from Quebec, had come to him at New York, to persuade him to go to Canada; but Henry said “he would not—that the Rubicon was passed.”
Henry kept the first company at Boston.
Being questioned if Henry had mentioned the names of any person with whom he had conferred 1 deponent answered “None.”
Deponent landed at Boston December 24, 1811; staid there about ten or twelve days. Visited Governor Gerry twice.
This is the
Question—Do you know where Henry is now 3
Answer—No. By report, I hear he is in New York.
Deponent left Boston in the public stage. Henry was also a passenger. But at New Haven deponent took a private carriage to himself.
COUNT E. DE CRILLON.
The report having been read, was, on motion of Mr. Porter, ordered to lie on the table.
STATE OF LOUISIANA.
The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill for the admission of Louisiana into the Union, and to extend the laws of the United States thereto. Mr. Johnson's amendment, for giving four Representatives to the part of West Florida proposed by the bill to be annexed to the State now formed of the Orleans Territory, again came under consideration. Mr. Johnson spoke in support of his motion, adverting to the memorial this day presented from the Convention of Orleans, giving their decided assent to the annexation of this Territory to the State, which would remove the objections urged against authorizing this representation. Mr. CALhouN opposed the amendment, on the ground of its incorporating in the law a principle of representation in hostility with that feature in the constitution of the new State which apportions representation in a different manner; and the Convention, the body which alone could change or modify the principle of representation, was already dissolved. He suggested a mode by which the object now in contemplation could be attained, viz: by reassembling the Convention. Mr. Nelson went into an argument to show that the proposed amendment was neither incompatible with the Constitution nor inexpedient. The error in the reasoning of gentlemen appeared to him to be, that Louisiana was considered by them as a State, which it was not until the bill now before the House should pass; and in its present inchoate situation, he contended it was competent to Congress to annex conditions to the instrument which makes them a State. Mr. M. dwelt at some length on the urgency of the claim of the population of Florida to a representation in the Legislature of the State, of which they could not be constitutionally deprived. Mr. PoindexTER admitted all that had been said on the subject of the right of suffrage, &c., but could not conceive how a Territory could be represented in the first Legislature of a State to which it was not annexed until the consent of that Legislature should be obtained. Mr. Nelson replied that there was yet no such body in existence as the Legislature of Louisiana. nor would there be until this bill passed to create it a State; and in admitting the State into the Union, having already imposed certain conditions, Congress had the right to impose that further condition which the amendment proposes. Mr. Johnson observed that his amendment was predicated on consent already given by the
MARch, 1812. / Southern
Frontier. H. of R.
Convention; but, if it were not, he contended that the people to be included in the State ought to be actually represented. He made a number of observations to show that there was no difficulty in the way. Mr. CALHoun again spoke in opposition to the amendment. It proposed to annex conditions to Orleans becoming a State, of which there was nobody in existence competent to accept, the Convention which framed the Constitution having been dissolved. The people in question would be unrepresented only until the State government should be organized: the interval in which they would be unrepresented would be unavoidable, and, being so short, not very important. The proposed amendment would be ingrafting the principle of Territorial government on a State government, to which it is wholly inapplicable; it was, in fact, assuming to make a constitution for the people of a State, whose inalienable right it was to form a constitution for themselves. Mr. Nelson again spoke in support of the motion at some length. Mr. Gholson spoke against the amendment in its present form, as he conceived it incompatible in many respects with the constitution now offered for the consideration of Congress; for instance, the Constitution provides that the Senate of the new State shall consist of fourteen members; the amendment adds two members peremptorily, which makes the number sixteen, in defiance of the Constitution. He read an amendment which he said he should propose if the one now under consideration were not agreed to. The amendment proposed by Mr. Johnson was negatived—39 to 37. Mr. Gholson then proposed to amend the bill, by adding to it the following proviso: “And provided, also, That the people of that portion of West Florida hereby proposed to be made a part of the State of Louisiana shall, before the election of Senators and a Representative to the Congress of the United States, be invested with, and enjoy equal rights of representation and equal privileges in every respect, with the people of the residue of the said State.” Mr. Rhea opposed the amendment, because he doubted the power of Congress to superadd conditions to those already made requisites to the admission of the State into the Union. There appeared to him but one way to remedy the evil, and that was to authorize the people of Orleans to meet again in convention to accept the conditions required. Mr. H. Clay spoke in favor of the amendment. He could see no real obstacle to its adoption. The Convention of Orleans had framed a constitution for the State in conformity to the law of Congress imposing certain conditions as preliminary. The Convention had annexed to their acceptance of these conditions another proposition, viz: that the Florida Territory should be incorporated in that State. Can we not, said Mr. C., accept or reject this proposition? If we accept, may we not do it with or without qualification ? We agree to give only a certain part instead of the whole of the Territory; and it is proposed to do
this on certain conditions. In alienating a whole Territory, an entire people, an exercise of one of the highest attributes of sovereignty, we are about to take care of their rights, and to secure to them the same political rights, privileges, and immunities, as are enjoyed by the people of the Territory to which it is to be annexed. If the present amendment was adopted, the question how these rights shall be invested, by the Legislature, or by a new convention, to be called for the purpose, was very properly left to the decision of those concerned.
Mr. Gholson's amendment was agreed to without a division.
The Committee then rose, and reported the bill as amended.
The several amendments made in the Committee were agreed to in the House, and the bill ordered to be engrossed for a third reading without a division.
FRIDAY, March 20.
Mr. MoRRow presented a bill for the relief of Elisha Winters; which was read twice, and committed to a Committee of the Whole on Monday next.
The bill to alter the time of holding the Circuit Courts of the United States for the first district, was read a third time ; and, after an explanation from Mr. HARPER of its object, was passed.
A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate disagree to the amendments proposed by this House to the bill “to establish a quartermaster's department, and for other purposes;” and ask a conference upon the subject-matter of the said amendments.
The House proceeded to reconsider their amendments to the said bill ; and
Resolved, That this House doth insist upon their said amendments, agree to the conference asked by the Senate, and appoint Mr. WRight, Mr. Williams, and Mr. TALLMADGE, managers at the said conference on their part.
The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill “making provision for certain persons claiming lands under the several acts for the relief of the refugees from the British provinces of Canada and Nova Scotia;” which was amended, reported to the House, and ordered to a third reading.
Mr. Poindexten, after adverting to the difficulty of getting Northern troops to march to the Southern extreme of the Union, and remarking that the bulk of the military force directed to be raised at this session, would receive a different destination, and pointing out the consequent necessity of giving the greatest possible efficiency to the militia in that quarter, offered the following resolution, stating, at the same time, that he felt confident, if the resolution was agreed to, in his ability to present to the Military Committee such a system as should meet their approbation:
“Resolved, That the Committee on Military Affairs be instructed to report a bill organizing the militia of the Western and Southern States and Territories, for the defence of the Southern frontier of the United States.”
On the suggestion of Mr. JENNINGs, the words. “and Western” were incorporated in the resolution, to precede the word “frontier.” Mr. RhEA moved to strike out the words “and States,” that the States might be left to regulate their own militia, unless a general reorganization of all the militia of the United States was to take place. Mr. Burwell said he saw but one objection to the adoption of the resolution, and that was the apparent impropriety of organizing the militia of a few States in a manner different from the whole. Mr. Poin DExtER observed that this mode of organization was not new ; because at the time of the Indian or Western war, a peculiar organization had been made of the militia of the Western States, with a view to their more efficient action. But, as this subject might not at first blush be understood, he was willing that the resolution should lie for consideration. The resolution was ordered to lie on the table.
ADMISSION OF LOUISIAN A.
The bill for the admission of the State of Louisiana into the Union, and to extend the laws of the United States thereto, was read a third time, and passed, without debate—yeas 79, nays 23, as follows:
YEAs—William Anderson, Stevenson Archer, Ezekiel Bacon, David Bard, Burwell Bassett, William W. Bibb, William Blackledge, Adam Boyd, James Breckenridge, Robert Brown, William A. Burwell, William Butler, Matthew Clay, Lewis Condict, William Crawford, Roger Davis, John Dawson, Samuel Dinsmoor, William Findley, James Fisk, Meshack Franklin, Thomas Gholson, Thomas R. Gold, Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Isaiah L. Green, Felix Grundy, Bolling Hall, Obed Hall, John A. Harper, Aylett Hawes, Jacob Husty, John M. Hyneman, Richard M. Johnson, Philip B. Key, William R. King, Abner Lacock, Peter Little, William Lowndes, Aaron Lyle, William McCoy, Samuel McKee, Alexander McKim, Arunah Metcalf. Samuel L. Mitchill, Jeremiah Morrow, Hugh Nelson, Anthony New, Thomas Newbold, Thomas Newton, Stephen Ormsby, Israel Pickens, James Pleasants, jr., Benjamin Pond, William M. Richardson, Henry M. Ridgely, Samuel Ringgold, John Rhea, John Roane, William Rodman, Ebenezer Sage, Ebenezer Seaver, Samuel Shaw, Daniel Sheffey, John Smilie, George Smith, John Smith, Richard Stanford, Samuel Taggart, John Taliaferro, Uri Tracy, George M. Troup, Charles Turner, junior, Pierre Van Cortlandt, junior, Robert Whitehill, David R. Williams, Thomas Wilson, Richard Winn, and Robert Wright.
Nars-Harmanus Bleecker, Epaphroditus Champion, Martin Chittenden, William Ely, James Emott, Asa Fitch, Richard Jackson, jr., Lyman Law, Joseph Lewis, jun., Robert Le Roy Livingston, James Milnor, Jonathan O. Moseley, Joseph Pearson, Timothy Pitkin, jr., Josiah Quincy, William Reed, Thomas Sammons, Adam Seybert, Philip Stuart, Lewis B. Sturges, Ben
jamin Tallmadge, Laban Wheaton, and Leonard White.
The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the amendments of the Senate to the bill from this House providing for the removal of causes pending in the District Courts of the United States, in the case of the absence or disability of the Judges thereof. [The bill, as sent from the House, provides that so much of a former act on this subject, as requires the application of the District Attorney or Marshal of the District in writing, as a preliminary to the removal of the cause to the Circuit Court, be repealed. The Senate proposes to strike out the whole, and insert a general provision, that, in all cases of disability of the District Judge, certified to the satisfaction of the President of the United States, the Circuit Judge shall hold the District Court, &c., in the same manner as the District Judge; and allowing to the said Circuit Judge a compensation of ten dollars for every day which shall be necessarily employed in such service.] The amendments of the Senate being under consideration— Mr. LAcock spoke against the principle of the amendment, at cousiderable length. However necessary the bill might be, and he believed it was, nevertheless he could not give it his assent, because he believed it inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution. The Constitution had provided that the Judges should, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. The reasons for this were obvious: that persons selected for judicial office must be such as have, by long experience and habits of industry and application, qualified themselves for the performance of the duties of the station; and it was, therefore, intended to afford them a competent support, which should not be dependent on the contingencies of sickness or inability, &c. The amendment now under consideration, proposed, contrary to the spirit at least of the Constitution, to give them an additional compensation of ten dollars for each day that they should be employed in a prescribed service. If you can compensate one judge in this way, why not another in another way ? And what is to prevent us, in case of a vacancy occurring, to allow, to the judge to be appointed to fill it, a diminished compensation per diem, instead of a fixed and “stated” compensation ? This, said Mr. L., was never the design of the Convention; though he did not appear as the advocate of the Judiciary, except as provided by the Constitution, which he hoped they would ever observe. Another objection to this bill, which Mr. L. considered as important, was, that it infringed another principle of the Constitution. That instrument provides that, in all cases affecting Ambassadors, &c., and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original, and in other cases appellate, jurisdiction.
The amendment now under consideration proposed, notwithstanding, to give (not, indeed, to the Supreme Court but) to a judge of the Supreme Court original jurisdiction, which the Constitution certainly had never contemplated; to give to a single judge a power denied to the whole bench, thus making a part superior to the whole. Mr. L. dwelt at some length on these points. If the judge to hold these courts was to be considered a judge of the Supreme Court, he could not have original jurisdiction; if a judge of an inferior tribunal, he must resign his present commission and take another. If he belonged to neither class, in what light was he to be viewed ? He believed there existed a necessity for some amendatory provision; but they ought not, therrfoie, to act unconstitutionally. Necessity was the tyrant's plea ; he hoped it would not be ours. The first inquiry should be as to their power; if they had it not, a hundred precedents would not justify them in again exercising it. Mr. Gold replied. He contended that there was no Constitutional difficulty in the way. The Constitution, indeed, had provided that they should not diminish the compensation of judges, but not that they should not increase it, as the bill proposed. This Constitutional provision was added for the protection of the judge; the spirit of which would be violated by imposing on him additional duty without additional compensation, which would, in fact, be diminishing his compensation. The compensations of judges have been before increased, without regard to the objections now urged, which would equally apply to various other acts passed by Congress. In reply to the argument that, from the manner in which the Supreme Court was constituted, the duties of an inferior judge could not be devolved on a judge of the Supreme Court, Mr. G. observed, that this was an old argument heretofore unsuccessfully urged, again and again, on this floor. It had been overruled in every case except in the single case occurring in the year 1801. Such a provision as now proposed was already in existence in a difserent shape, under which Judge Washington had lately sat at Washington, and Judge Johnson at Charleston. In the important case of the Exchange, the decision of Judge Washington had been reversed by the unanimous decision of the court; so that it was no objection that a judge sat on the revision of his own decisions. Mr. G. adverted to the pressure of the bill, and the peculiar hardship of the cases of those who had suits depending in the District Court of New
York, in which there were seven hundred bonds
In suit. If this bill be postponed only a few days, it would be too late; as the judge would be comPelled to go on his Eastern circuit in April, to the Prejudice of those whose persons and property were awaiting the decision of the court. Mr. WRight followed Mr. G. and spoke at great length. He appeared to be opposed to the bill, on grounds of expediency, not of constitutionality. He expressed an opinion of the necessity of ageneral revision of our judicial system. Mr. Macon spoke in favor of the bill.
Mr. Newton also supported it, and dwelt on its extreme importance. Among other reasons for it, he stated that there were in the District Court of New York, the judge of which was absent, seventy-four vessels libelled, and many persons imprisoned, &c., whom such a law as this could only relieve. The Committee rose and reported their agreement to the amendments ; which were immediately taken up by the House. Mr. LAcock said, that as, on this important question, precedent appeared to be entirely relied on, without regarding the Constitutional question, he thought it absolutely necessary that the question should be taken by yeas and nays. Mr. Alston spoke against the amendment, on nearly the same Constitutional ground as was occupied by Mr. LAcock. The question on the first clause of the amendment was decided by yeas and nays, and carried —yeas 69, nays 40, as follows: YEAs—Stevenson Archer, Ezekiel Bacon, Burwell Bassett, William W. Bibb, Abijah Bigelow, William Blackledge, Harmanus Bleecker, James Breckenridge, William A. Burwell, William Butler, John C. Calhoun, Martin Chittenden, Lewis Condict, William Crawford, John Davenport, jr., John Dawson, William Ely, James Emott, William Findley, James Fisk, Asa Fitch, Thomas Gholson, Thomas R. Gold, Charles Goldsborough, Isaiah L. Green, Felix Grundy, John A. Harper, Aylett Hawes, Richard Jackson, junior, Joseph Kent, Lyman Law, Joseph Lewis, jun., Peter Little, Robert Le Roy Livingston, Nathaniel Macon, Thomas Moore, William McCoy, Samuel McKee, Arunah Metcalf, James Milnor, Samuel L. Mitchill, Jeremiah Morrow, Jonathan O. Moseley, Thomas Newbold, Thomas Newton, Stephen Ormsby, Joseph Pearson, Israel Pickens, Timothy Pitkin, jun., James Pleasants, jun., Benjamin Pond, Elisha R. Potter, Josiah Quincy, William Reed, Henry M. Ridgely, Samuel Shaw, Daniel Sheffey, Philip Stuart, Silas Stow, Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Uri Tracy, George M.Troup, Charles Turner, jr., Pierre Van Cortlandt.jun., Laban Wheaton, Leonard White, and Thomas Wilson. NAxs—Willis Alston, jr., David Bard, Adam Boyd, Robert Brown, Langdon Cheves, Matthew Clay, Elias Earle, Meshack Franklin, Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Bolling Hall, Obed Hall, Jacob Hufty, John M. Hyneman, Philip B. Key, William R. King, Abner Lacock, Joseph Lefever, William Lowndes, Aaron Lyle, Alexander McKim, Hugh Nelson, Samuel Ringgold, John Rhea, John Roane, Jonathan Roberts, Williain Rodman, Ebenezer Sage, Ebenezer Seaver, John Sevier, Adam Seybert, John Smilie, George Smith, Richard Stanford, William Strong, John Taliaferro, Robert Whitehill, David R. Williams, William Widge. ry, and Robert Wright.
The question on the remainder of the amendment, viz: that part allowing the Judges ten dollars per diem, while so enployed, was negatived —yeas 47, nays 61, as follows:
YEAs—Stevenson Archer, Burwell Bassett, William W. Bibb, Abijah Bigelow, William Blackledge, Harmanus Bleecker, James Breckenridge, John C. Calhoun, Martin Chittenden, John Davenport, jr., William Ely, James Emott, James Fisk, Asa Fitch, Thomas R. Gold, Charles Goldsborough, John A. Harper,
Richard Jackson, junior, Joseph Kent, Joseph Lewis, junior, Robert Le Roy Livingston, Nathaniel Macon, James Milnor, Samuel L. Mitchill, Jonathan O. Moseley, Hugh Nelson, Thomas Newbold, Stephen Ormsby, Joseph Pearson, Israel Pickens, Peter B. Porter, Elisha R. Potter, William Reed, William M. Richardson, Henry M. Ridgely, Daniel Sheffey, Silas Stow, Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Uri Tracy, George M. Troup, Pierre Van Cortlandt, jun., Laban Wheaton, Leonard White, Thomas Wilson, and Robert Wright. Nars—Willis Alston, jr., David Bard, Adam Boyd, Robert Brown, William A. Burwell, William Butler, Langdon Cheves, Matthew Clay, Lewis Condict, William Crawford, Roger Davis, John Dawson, Samuel Dinsmoor, Elias Earle, William Findley, Meshack Franklin, Thomas Gholson, Peterson Goodwyn, Isaiah L. Green, Bolling Hall, Obed Hall, Aylett Hawes, Jacob Hufty, John M. Hyneman, Philip B. Key, William R. King, Abner Lacock, Peter Little, William Lowndes, Aaron Lyle, George C. Maxwell, Thomas Moore, William McCoy, Samuel McKee, Alexander McKim, Arunah Metcalf, Jeremiah Morrow, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, James Pleasants, jun., Benjamin Pond, Samuel Ringgold, John Rhea, John Roane, Jonathan Roberts, William Rodman, Ebenezer Sage, Thos. Sammons, Ebenezer Seaver, John Sevier, Adam Seybert, Samuel Shaw, John Smilie, George Smith, Richard Stanford, William Strong, John Taliaferro, Charles Turner, jr., Robert Whitehill, David R. Williams, and William Widgery.
Monday, March 23.
Mr. MoRRow presented a petition of Eligius Fromentin and Allan B. Magruder, Delegates from the Convention of the Territory of Orleans, praying that a board of Land Commissioners may be established to hold their session at Baton Rouge, and that donation rights to land may be granted to certain inhabitants of West Florida.Referred to the Committee on the Public Lands.
Mr. Gholson, from the Committee of Claims, made an unfavorable report on the several petitions of Amelie Eugenie de Beaumarchais, by J. A. Chevallie, her attorney.—Referred to a Committee of the Whole on Monday next.
A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate recede from their second amendment to the bill “providing for the trial of causes pending in the respective District Courts of the United States, in case of the disability of the Judges thereof.”
A motion was made by Mr. Ripa Ely, that the House do come to the following resolution:
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to lay before this House a statement showing the quota payable by each State of the direct tax laid by the act, entitled “An act to lay and collect a direct tax within the United States;” the amount of said tax that has been paid into the Treasury from each State respectively, and the respective sums and dates of payment; the expenses in each State of collecting said tax, the losses that have been sustained in each State, and the causes thereof, and the balance of each State's quota of said tax now due.
The resolution was read, and ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. MilNor, from the committee appointed to inquire into the propriety of amending the laws respecting the authentication of records, &c., of one State in the courts of another, reported against the expediency of making any amendments in said act or acts. Mr. CHEves, from the Committee of Conference on the Navy bill, reported the result of the conference with the Senate, each House having conceded a part of the positions on which it had insisted. The Committee of Conference recommend that the Senate recede from their amendment, confining the appropriation for timber to such as shall be necessary for repairing certain vessels, and in lieu thereof to insert the following words at the end of the section: “And that the first ap: ‘propriation thereof be made in the purchase of ‘timber suitable for rebuilding the frigates Phila‘delphia, General Greene, New York, and Boston.” That the Senate recede from their disagreement to the section for laying up the gunboats, striking out of it the words, “in aid of the land fortifications.” That the House of Representatives agree to the section respecting pursers, reducing the amount of the security required from twenty to ten thousand dollars, with the addition of the following words: “Excepting pursers on distant ‘service, who shall not remain in service after ‘the first day of July next, unless nominated and * appointed as aforesaid.” The report was committed. Mr. WRight, from the Committee on Military Affairs, reported a bill for the organization of a corps of artificers; to consist of one superintendent, and a number of blacksmiths, carpenters, masons, saddlers, &c. The bill was twice read, and referred to a Committee of the Whole. The bill making provision for certain persons claiming lands under the several acts for the relief of the refugees from the British provinces of Canada and Nova Scotia, was read a third time, and, after some discussion on particular claims it involves, passed by this House. The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill to authorize the Secretary of War to exchange lands with the Ursuline Nuns, in the city of New Orleans; which was gone through, reported to the House, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. The bill to incorporate the Trustees of Washington College went through a Committee of the Whole, and was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. The favorable report on the petition of William Hubbell went through a Committee of the Whole, was agreed to, and referred to the Committee of Claims to report a bill accordingly.
Tuesday, March 24. Mr. Gholson, from the Committee of Claims, made an unfavorable report on the petition of Bartholomew Broughton; which was read, and concurred in. Mr. RhEA reported the post-road bill with