Mr. ARCHER then moved to postpone the further consideration of the subject until Thursday next, when, if there was any such thing as corruption in the case, it may have been consummated, and the House would then be authorized to make an inquiry, which, in his opinion, it was not authorized to make at the present time. On this question, Mr. SANDFORD, of Tenn. demanded the yeas and nays, which were ordered. Mr. CADY, of New York, moved that the further consideration of the subject be indefinitely postponed. [FEB. 4, 1825, lief is, that such an investigation will establish, beyond tion. It extended even to death, if that were necessaall cavil, the innocence of the party accused. This I ry, and, in the exercise of such a prerogative, was that doubt not, is anticipated by nearly every individual of House about to act as on an ordinary case of inquiry? this House; and does the gentleman think it of no im-It was a question of the very highest importance. On portance to refute calumny, to sustain the innocent, to the occasion to which he had alluded, although there disabuse the public, and to eradicate the poison of suspi- was no doubt respecting the breach of privilege, yet the cion from the very core? This, sir, is my purpose, and, question, with regard to its punishment, was discussed I trust, the purpose of those who support the resolution for a week, and at length decided in the affirmative by for inquiry; a purpose which I am sorry to observe there a small majority. Now, supposing the latter question is so great a reluctance, on the part of its opponents, to has been ten thousand times as bad as it had been readopt the only reasonable mode of attaining. presented to be, it was no matter: the question was, Shall a mere newspaper article call into solemn exercise the highest power which belongs to this House? Why must this be done? It is answered, because the letter has been traced to a member of this House; but may you not, on this principle, follow up all the printers throughout the U. States? Is there any earthly difference between a newspaper article written by a member of this House, and such an article written by any other person? Did a gentleman, by becoming a member of this House, deprive himself of the ordinary privileges which he would have bad, had he remained out of the House? Might he not write to his constituents the same as other gentlemen wrote to their friends? Surely he might. And if this House is obliged to investigate and punish a letter which comes from a member, it is bound to do the same if the letter come from any other member of the community. The power to punish for contempt was the most tyrannical in its nature, of any of the powers incident to Government. It is given by the constitution to the Judiciary as well as to the Legisla ture; yet, in many of the States, the Legislature has circumscribed the power of the courts, in punishing, to their own walls; and, in the discussion to which he be fore alluded, and which took place in this House, the same rule was contended to apply to the Legislature.It was ably and very strenuously argued, that even this House had no authority to punish a contempt beyond the limits of its own Hall. Shall we, asked Mr. I. constitute ourselves into an inquisitorial tribunal to try and punish a breach of privilege merely about a letter to a printer? Sir, this House is now about to establish a principle more obnoxious to freedom than any I have heard broached in the worst of times. The chair decided this motion not to be in order. The question was then taken on postponing to Thursday, by yeas and nays, and decided in the negative yeas 62, nays 145. The question then recurred on referring the communication of the Speaker to a committee. Mr. SANDFORD, of Tennessee, said that, before that question was taken, he wished to offer a few remarks. He called upon the House to reflect for a moment-the question was important-the fact charged approached nearer to an overt act than any thing which he had yet seen brought before a legislative body. Suppose the committee should go into the investigation, and much evidence should be adduced, though not sufficient to convict, (he hoped the honorable Speaker would be acquitted at any rate,) what a dilemma would the House be in! There was another point; if the report of the committee should be unfavorable to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and a suit at law should hereafter be instituted against him on the same account, that report might have great weight to his prejudice. Mr. TATTNALL demanded that, on the question of commitment, the yeas and nays should be recorded.— They were ordered accordingly. How is this subject brought before us? Shortly after Mr. INGHAM, of Pennsylvania, then observed, that the letter to the printer, in Philadelphia, a card appear he hoped, although the hour was late, that the House ed in the newspapers in this city which contained a mewould indulge him in a brief expression of his views on nace against the author of that letter, whoever he might the subject before them. When that subject was first be. This made the matter a personal contest; and, if it presented, it struck his mind that the investigation ought was calculated to have any influence on the member, to be ordered, and his first impression was, that he that influence was to intimidate him. The practical ef should vote for the appointment of a committee, and fect of which would have been-to stifle public and against all attempts to resist the inquiry. But, during the free discussion of the conduct of a public man, because, course of the debate to-day, he had reflected more ma- in all such discussions, it is extremely difficult to sepa turely, as he had endeavored also to do during the past rate truth from falsehood. It is said, the letter has been night, and he now felt satisfied that this question involv- avowed. Sir, it has been said, with equal truth, that ed much higher considerations than an ordinary ques- the avowal has been "extorted;" and thus the name tion of inquiry. What was the question now before the of the author has come into the possession of this House. House? Was it an issue joined between two members, An appeal is made from the public and ordinary tribu the consequence of which must necessarily be the pro-nal to this House. Is it competent for us to sustain the stration of one of them? That, he apprehended was not the case. The question had been represented, on all sides, as a question of privilege. The privilege of the Speaker had been invaded, and the House was called upon to punish the offender. He thought that, as the inflicting of such punishment was an exercise of the highest privilege possessed by the House, it ought What are the respective conditions of the two indivi ever to be done with the utmost caution and care. He duals concerned? The one occupies a lofty station he had had the honor to be present, some years ago, when is placed high before the view of the country-he pos the nature of this prerogative underwent a full and sesses the just confidence of the members of this House solemn discussion, and he well remembered, that it was the esprit du corps concentrates itself upon his person then determined, that the power of the House to pun---he exercises high powers of patronage in this House; ish was a power which had no limits; that it was a con- (God forbid that I should say he exercises them in an structive power, springing out of the necessary organi-improper manner.) All these things create a great dif zation of the House, and essential to its self-preserva ference between him and the member who has accused jurisdiction? The laws of the press do not prevent an avowal of the name of the author of a publication. Shall this House virtually prevent it? Prevent it by punishing it? Shall we erect it into an inquisitorial tribunal-into a summary court to punish for breach of privilege? Aye, sir, for breach of privilege! FEB. 4, 1825.] The Speaker's Appeal to the House. [H. of R. It was but the year before last, the printers to this House stated, that their official conduct had been implicated, and a committee was appointnd to investigate the charge against them, and make a report upon the subject." This committee was raised almost without objec tion. Whether we regard our own character, said Mr. F. or any other consideration, this appears to me to be the only course we have to pursue. him. This, surely, is not the place to seek an impartial decision of tire differences between them. We all know there is already a great excitement existing, and that it is increasing every moment like the rapidity of a descending body. Shall we be called upon now to act upon such an inquiry? I trust not; I trust we shall pause before we go into an investigation which connects itself with such high and such peculiar considerations. Apart from these, I will view the inquiry as a matter of Mr. INGHAM rose in reply. He did not conclude no importance, nor do I concern myself with it. But, that the gentleman from Georgia had put the inquiry surely, sir, it would present a most extraordinary spec- simply on the ground of privilege. He placed it on the tacle, to see every member of this House called in suc ground of the licentiousness of the press, and maintained cession, before the committee, to testify concerning all that it was necessary to correct that licentiousness by the communications which he has heard in relation to the interference of this House. A principle certainly the matters referred to in the letter of the member from very nearly allied to the other. There is another ground Pennsylvania. Ayc, sir, it would be a singular specta of objection, of which it was fit that some member from cle. The testimony that was collected would make a Pennsylvania should take notice. The Speaker, in his book; and a book that would be read through every communication, says, that he shall take no other notice part of these United States. It would contain any con of the accusation than that which he has done, because versations calculated to excite the public curiosity to a of the source from which it proceeds. He did not know very high degree. I do not mean jocular conversations whether he was to understand the Speaker as alluding, about the lobbies of this House, where three or four by those words, to the state from which the member have been conversing together, but I refer to close tete came, or to the member himself. The expression was a-tete interviews, where only two have been present. equivocal: but, whether he meant the one or the other, Sir, I mean not to insinuate that any thing improper Mr I. said he should consider himself as delinquent in has been done or said in these interviews, but this is not his duty, if he did not notice and repel a statement of my objection to the inquiry; it is of a higher character; that kind. By the constitution of the country, every it involves principles connected with the best interests portion of the American people is alike represented by of this nation, and if an attempt were made to arraign me members on this floor. And it would be unfortunate, for a contempt committed by writing a letter to my con- indeed, if the House were called on to compare, and to stituents, or any where else, I would not answer-I contrast, the respective claims of different members to would stand mute, and deny, and defy your power. different degrees of consideration. He would not conYou might imprison me, and manacle me with chains. trast the claims of the Speaker and his colleagues to But you should never compel me to become a volunta- consideration, either in their political or any other charry instrument to violate the constitution in my person. acter-such a contrast ought, of all things, the most to The liberty of the press shall not be violated through be avoided. And he would confess, that those words any compliance of mine. When these high privileges of the Hon. Speaker had excited in his breast some senare put at stake, the sufferings, the life, of an individual sibility, both as to the honor of his state, and to that of are nothing. For these reasons I shall vote against the the members of her delegation. And he considered it appointment of a committee. If the inquiry affected due to the character of the state he had the honor, in nothing but the mere question between these two indi-part, to represent, to deny the right of any member to viduals, I should vote a committee at once; but, because assume such a position in this House. it involves all that I hold most dear, I shall resist the appointment, so far as my vote will go. Mr. FOOT, of Conn. said that certain papers were referred to in the motion of the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. FORSYTH,) which were not before the House; and he suggested to the gentleman the propriety of so modifying his motion as to refer to the committee nothing more than the communication of the Speaker. Mr. FORSYTH accepted the modification, and, at the requisition of a member, reduced his motion to the fol lowing form: "Resolved, That the communication made by the Speaker to the House, and entered on the Journal of he House, be referred to a select committee." Mr. BUCHANAN, of Pa. now moved that the House adjourn. The motion was negatived. Mr. FORSYTH said that, as the author of the proposition now before the House, he was anxious that the grounds on which he offered it should be understood. The gentleman had said that this proposition had been universally treated as a proposition touching the privi leges of the House. 1, (said Mr. F.) do not support it on that ground. It is not a question of privilege, nor is it a question that touches, in any manner, the right of any individual to publish any thing he pleases. It is a question touching the purity of conduct of the members of this House, in a case in which they can be punished by this House, if guilty, or vindicated, if innocent. It is immaterial how the matter may have come before us.If the humblest individual in the community were to pre- Mr. M'DUFFIE then moved to amend the motion of sent a memorial stating facts, which, if true, would justi- | Mr. FORSYTH, by adding to it the following clause: fy the interposition of this House, I would vote for an in- "And that the said committee be instructed to inquire quiry into them. If the member who is the author of whether the friends of Mr. CLAY have hinted that they this communication had stated facts to the House, and would fight for those who would pay best,' or any thing demanded an investigation, who would have refused it? to that effect, and whether overtures were said to have Is it merely because the request for it comes from the been made by the friends of ADAMS to the friends of Speaker of this House, that it is to be refused? The LAY, offering him the appointment of Secretary of State charge is here, and the person charged demands an in- for his aid to elect ADAMS, and whether the friends of quiry. The person who makes the charge is present, CLAY gave this information to the friends of JACKSON, asks an investigation, and says he can prove his allega- and hinted that, if the friends of JACKSON would offer tions. Under these circumstances, it appears to me to the same price, they would close with them,' and whebe a matter of necessity to institute the inquiry. A few ther HENRY CLAY has transferred, or resolved to transyears ago, an inquiry was instituted, of a similar nature fer, his interest to Jons Q. ADAMS,' and whether it was to this, on the mere suggestion of a member. A mem- said and believed that, as a consideration for this abanber was accused of making a contract, whilst in office, donment of duty to his constituents, CLAY was to be apand, on the mere motion of a member of the House, the pointed Secretary of State,' and that the said committee fact was investigated by a committee, and a report madbe authorized to send for persons and papers, and to VOL. 1-31 H. of R.] The Speaker's Appeal to the House. compel the persons so sent for to answer all questions, touching the subject referred, upon oath." Mr. M'DUFFIE said, his objection to the inquiry was for essential reasons. But, if the House determined to have an investigation, he hoped some points would be prescribed to which the attention of the committee should be exclusively directed It was said, that certain charges were made, by a certain letter. If they were contained within the words of the letter, he wished that the words themselves should be recited. With regard to the last part of his amendment, it would be an unpleasant investigation; but, if it did take place, the character of the parties could not be exonerated in any other manner than by the examination, upon cath, of all persons who could give information on the subject. [FEB. 4, 1825. contests in the House: and, if we were saved from the disgrace of this, with coldness and deliberation members would depart from their seats to seek each other's lives elsewhere. I have known the interposition of this House invoked to prevent the settlement of disputes out of it. These things have been done; I do not defend them, nor justify them. When members are in this Hall charged with crimes, in this Hall the charges ought to be investigated, whether the charges are made in debate or otherwise-whether orally or in writing. And have we not the power to investigate them? Why was the power of expulsion given to us, if it was supposed there never could occur a case in which it could be exercised? The constitution supposes that members may be guilty of offences which would require them to be Mr. RANDOLPH, of Virginia, then rose. Of the pro- dragged from this place with disgrace and dishonor. If ceedings of this body, said he, I have been, I will not an individual were proved to have received a bribe for say a patient, but a most reluctant spectator. I believe, his vote, the Senate has decided that members of Consir, that the principles of the institutions of this country gress are not officers of the Government within the are sufficiently discredited abroad to render it unneces- meaning of the constitution, and are therefore not im sary, even for their enemies, to discredit them at home. peachable. Where, then, can punishment be inflicted What then shall we say to our friends? I cannot, as one on such offenders, but here? Here, and here alone, it of the oldest members of this body, any longer restrain ought to be inflicted. Whenever such a case occurs, I myself from asking, to what we are about to reduce our hope it will be inflicted. Here, I venture to say, it will selves, in the estimation not only of the public, but in be, and, if it be not, this branch of the National Legisla Are we, the Congress of the United States-ture is irretrievably disgraced. are we sitting here to deliberate on great national and federal concernments, or are we reduced to the situation of a l'arish Vestry, of a Board of Overseers of the Poor, or of a court to settle Sir, I do not wish to enter into that question. I have kept myself aloof from this thing; but I beg the House to consider what they may be about to do. If I misapprehend or misinterpret, I ask pardon-it is the result of my infirmity-but, if I do understand the proposition before us, it is, that this House shall do that which it would be derogatory to an individual to do that which is not of sufficient dignity for an individual to touch, is the matter relegated to this body. Sir, I cannot consent to reduce the House to such a condition. But I rose not to enter into the discussion, but to move what I think ought instantly to be done that this proposition. with its amendments, accessories, and principals, should be indefinitely postponed. our own. I make that motion. Mr. RANDOLPH said, that he must be permitted to add, that it was under the view of an express disclaimer of any such results as the gentleman had alluded to, that he had spoken. The SPEAKER pronounced the motion of the gentleman from Virginia, indefinitely to postpone, not to be in order while an amendment was pending. Mr. M'DUFFIE now withdrew his amendment for a time, in order that the question might be taken on the motion for indefinite postponement. Mr. INGHAM, of Pennsylvania, demanded that that question should be taken by yeas and nays. The question on indefinite postponement was then taken by yeas and nays, as follows: YEAS. Messrs. Alexander, of Va., Alexander, of Tenn., Allen, of Tenn., Allison, Archer, Baylies, J. S. Barbour, Bartlett, Blair, Brown, Buchanan, Buck, Cady, Cambreleng, Carter, Carey, Clark, Collins, Day, Dwinell, Edwards, of N. C., Ellis, Farrelly, Findlay, Floyd, Foote, of N. Y. Frost, Govan, Hamilton, Harris, Hayward, Hogeboom, Holcombe, Hooks, Houston, Ingham, Johnson, of Va., Lincoln, Litchfield, Livingston, M'Duffie, M'Kean, M'Kee, Miller, Mitchell, of Penn., Moore, of Alab., Morgan, Outlaw, Owen, Patterson, of Penn., Plumer, of Penn., Poinsett, Randolph, Rankin, Richards, Ross, Sandford, Arthur Smith, Alexander Smyth, Wm. Smith, Spaight, Standefer,, Sterling, Tattnall, Ten Eyck, Thompson, of Penn., Thompson, of Geo., Udree, Wayne, Whitman, Williams, of N. C., James Wilson, Henry Wilson, Wilson, of S. C., Wilson, of Ohio, Wolfe, Wood-77. Mr. FORSYTH said he scarcely knew in what terms to answer the argument of the gentleman from Virginia. It would seem that he considered the proposition derogatory to the character of the House, and of the representative body. This, said Mr. F. appears to me to be a strange conception. The proposition goes to institute an inquiry into the purity of a member of this House, who, it is charged, has in his pocket a promise of a place of profit and honor, if he gives his vote on the Presidential election, in a certain way. Is this not derogatory to the character of the House? Ought its truth or falsehood not to be ascertained? Are we to stand by and see the individuals charged execute the act, on the ful. filment of which the purchase money is to be paid? I NAYS. Messrs. Abbot, Adams, Allen, of Mass., Baihave a very different idea, sir, of what becomes the cha- ley, Barber, of Conn. P. P. Barbour, Bartley, Bassett, racter of the House of Representatives of the United Beecher, Bradley, Breck, Brent, Buckner, Burleigh, States They have great duties of legislation, it is true; Call, Campbell, of S. C. Campbell, of Ohio, Cassedy, but they have great duties, also, as regards the purity of Cocke, Condict, Conner, Cook, Crafts, Craig, Crowntheir own characters, and it is proper that their charac-inshield, Culpeper, Cushman, Durfee, Dwight, Eddy, ters should be understood. I ask the honorable gentle- Foot, of Con., Forsyth, Forward, Fuller, Garrison, Gatnan from Virginia, if he were charged by a member of lin, Gist, Gurley, Hall, Harvey, Hayden, Hemphill, Henthis House, of having paltered with his duty-with hav- ry, Herrick, Herkimer Hobart, Isacks, Jenkins, Jening made a corrupt bargain, Whether he would not de- nings, J. T. Johnson, F. Johnson, Kent, Kidder, Lathrop, mand an inquiry-whether this House would not ring Lawrence, Lee, Leftwich, Letcher, Little, Livermore, with his cry for justice? And, if an inquiry is in such a Locke, Long, Longfellow, M'Arthur, M'Coy, M'Kim, case as this refused, to what condition is a member of M'Lane, of Del., M'Lean, of Ohio, Mangum, Mallary, this House reduced? You refer him back to a state of Markley, Martindale, Marvin, Matlack, Matson Mercer, nature, and say to him, go and do justice to yourself up- Metcalfe, Mitchell, of Md., Moore, of Ken., Neale, on your accuser. And will he not? One of the imme-Nelson, Newton, O'Brien, Olin, Patterson, of Ohio, Piudiate effects of such a refusal would be personal contests mer, of N. H. Reed, Reynolds, Rives, Rose, Saunders, in your lobbies--from that we should come to personal Scott, Sharpe, Sibley, Sloane, Spence, A. Stevenson, J. Stephenson, Stoddard, Storrs, Strong, Swan, Taliaferro, Taylor, Test, Thompson, of Ken., Tomlinson, Tracy, Trimble, Tucker, of Va., Tucker, of S. C., Tyson, Vance, of N. C. Vance, of Ohio, Van Rensselaer, Van Wyck, Vinton, Warfield, Webster, Whipple, Whittlesey, White, Wickliffe, Williams, of N. Y. Williams, of Va, Woods, Wright-127. Mr. M'DUFFIE now renewed his motion to amend the resolve in manner above stated. The question was loudly called for, when Mr. McDUFFIE, who was on the floor, said-Sir, I'll speak to the question. The feelings which I now have, it would not become me here to express. I will utter a few remarks in illustration of the amendment which I have of fered, and I shall utter them, let the question be called for as loudly and as often as it may. I am not to be put down by the cry of "question! question!" Sir, this is a high-handed measure, and the object of my amendment is, to accord to the individual, who (and not the Speaker of the House) is the real object of that measure, the poor right which belongs to every individual, when he is to be tried. I was opposed to going into this committee, but, if we must investigate the charge against the member from Pennsylvania, let us try him on the very words which he used. It is an important right of every accused man that the charge on which he is to be tried shall be specifically set forth, and that he shall not respond for any acts, but for those which he has committed. It has again and again been said, that the letter charges corruption. Sir, notwithstanding the glaze and color put upon it, the letter charges no such thing. There are the charges embodied in this amendment. As this is nothing more nor less than indictment for iibel, I have pursued the common law terms. There is the issue made up, not a vague and indefinite charge, but the very issue he himself presented. Sir, I regret the investigation, but, if it must take place, let it be in proper form. Let me add one word to the friends of Mr. CLAY on this floor, (and there are no members on this floor, for whom, generally, I feel more respect.) I have been informed that some of his friends suppose that the amendment I have offered contains something which is intended to bear harshly upon them. Not so: not so. My object is merely to confine the charges made against the honorable Speaker to the very words of the letter of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. MALLARY, of Vermont, rose, only to make a single remark. The House would see at once that the amendment now proposed was inconsistent with the communication made by the Speaker. The Speaker says, that direct charges of corruption have been made, and the question is, whether they have been made, and, if they have, whether they are true? But the amendment includes the friends of the Speaker, and charges on rumor merely. Mr. CLAY does not contend, in his communication, for the vindication of his friends, but only for his own personal vindication. The amendment, therefore, is irrelevant to the subject matter of inquiry. Mr. ELLIS, of Pennsylvania, now moved an adjourn ment, which was negatived. Ayes 79, Noes 105. [H. of R. question on adjournment was then again taken, and de- Mr. M'DUFFIE replied, that he did not recollect the words he had used: they would speak for themselves. He meant whatever his words imported. Mr. FORSYTH resumed. He was then to understand the gentleman as meaning to say, that this was a highhanded measure, and intended to bear down a member of the House. So far as I have any thing to do with it, I take leave to say, that such an assertion is without foundation. I have expressed no opinion whatever between the parties, and had merely moved a reference of the communication, that the committee might decide whether the subject should be further investigated or not. The question was then put on Mr. M'DUFFIE'S amendment, and negatived by a large majority. The question then recurring on the original motion of Mr. FORSYTH, as above stated, in writing, it was decided in the affirmative, by yeas and nays, as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Abbot, Adams, Bailey, Baylies, Barber, of Conn., P. P. Barbour, Bartley, Bassett, Beecher, Bradley, Breck, Brent, Buckner, Burleigh, Call, Campbell, of S. C., Campbell, of Ohio, Cassedy,Cocke, Condict, Conner, Cook, Crafts, Craig, Crowninshield, Culpeper, Cushman, Durfee, Dwight, Eddy, Foot, of Con., Forsyth, Forward, Fuller, Garrison, Gatlin, Gist, Gurley, Hall, Harvey, Hayden, Hemphill, Henry, Herrick, Herkimer, Hobart, Isacks, Jenkins, Jennings, Johnson, of Va., J. T. Johnson, F. Johnson, Kent, Kidder, Lathrop, Lawrence, Lee, Leftwich, Letcher, Little, Livermore, Locke. Long, Longfellow, M'Arthur, M'Coy, M'Kim, M'Lane, of Del., M'Lean, of Ohio, Mangum, Mallary, Markley, Martindale, Marvin, Matlack, Matson, Mercer, Metcalfe, Mitchell, of Md., Moore, of Ken., Neale, Nelson, Newton, O'Brien, Olin, Patterson of Ohio, Plumer, of N. H., Red, Reynolds, Rives, Rose, Saunders, Scott, Sharpe, Sloane, Spence, A. Stevenson, J. Stephenson, Storrs, Swan, Taliaferro, Taylor, Test, Thompson, of Penn., Thompson, of Ken., Tomlinson, Tracy, Trimble, Tucker, of Va., Tucker, of S. C., Vance, of N. C., Vance, of Ohio, Van Rensselaer, Van Wyck, Vinton, Warfield, Webster, Whipple, Whittlesey, White, Wickliffe, Williams, of N. Y., Williams, of Va. Woods, Wright-125. NÄYS.-Messrs. Alexander, of Va., Alexander, of Tenn., Allen, of Tenn., Allison, Archer, J. S. Barbour, Bartlett, Blair, Brown, Buchanan, Buck, Cady, Cambreleng, Carter, Carey, Clark, Collins, Day, Dwinell, Edwards, of N. C., Ellis, Farrelly, Findlay, Floyd, Foote, of N. Y., Gazlay, Govan, Hamilton, Harris, Hayward, Holcombe, Hooks, Houston, Ingham, Lincoln, Litchfield, M'Duffie, M'Kean, M'Kee, Miller, Mitchell, of Penn., Moore, of Ala., Outlaw, Owen, Patterson, of Penn., Plumer, of Penn., Poinsett, Randolph, Rankin, Richards, Ross, Sandford, Arthur Smith, William Smith, Spaight, Standefer, Sterling, Tattnall, Ten Eyck, Thompson, of Geo., Wayne, Whitman, Williams, of N. C., James Wilson, Henry Wilson, Wilson, of S. C. Wilson, of Ohio, Wolfe, Wood-69. Mr. COOK, of Illinois, said, that he rose, not to utter one word about the amendment, but merely to express a hope, which he trusted was not without foundation, that, if the House would adjourn, the meaning and intention of the letter of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, would, when it sat again, be so explained and presented to the House that it could, without difficulty, be acted upon. If the letter referred to a mere general report, the case certainly was not one on which the House was called to act, but he indulged a hope that the gentleman from Pennsylvania would distinctly ex-ed by ballot, which was agreed to: plain what he did mean in that letter, and whether he meant any thing beyond mere report or not. With this hope, he moved that the House do now adjourn. The So Mr. FORSYTH's motion was carried. Mr. FORSYTH moved that the Committee be appoint [Messrs. P. P. BARBOUR, WEBSTER, M'LANE, Taylor, FonsYTH, SAUNDERS, and RANKIN, were appointed on the next day.] H. of R. & Sen. Chesapeake and Ohio Canal-Yazoo Claims-Piracy, etc. [FEB. 5, 7, 1825. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.-SATURDAY, FEB.5. Mr. MERCER moved to take up the bill confirming the Act of the Legislature of Maryland, which confirms that of the General Assembly of Virginia, respecting the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company. The motion was opposed by Mr. COCKE, but carried. The bill was taken up and read. Mr. MERCER then moved that it be ordered to be engrossed for a third reading on Monday next. Mr. COCKE opposed the motion, on the ground that the House was not prepared to pass the bill; that they hal no sufficient information respecting it; and that it was likely, in its result, to involve the expenditure of large sums of money. He moved that it take the usual course, by being referred to a committee of the whole. Mr. MERCER replied-explained the nature of the bill-showed that it involved no appropriation of money whatever-but merely provided for the incorporation of a company. He showed the necessity of passing the bitl at as early a moment as possible, because, as the in-gaged in that nefarious trade. They have organized Corporation required the consent of the Legislature of Pennsylvania, and that Legislature was now in session, and would soon adjourn, if the present moment were lost, the useful undertaking which was the design of the company, must be postponed a whole year. The Legislatures of Maryland and Virginia bad given their assent already; and his sole object in pressing the bill now, was to get it before the Legislature of Pennsylvania at as early time as possible, &c. Mr. COCKE having read the bill, (a copy of which lay on the members' tables,) admitted that it made no direct appropriation of money; but contended that it would lead to measures which must involve great expense. He wanted further information-wished to see a copy of the act proposed to be confirmed, &c. Mr. MERCER again explained the nature and objects of the bill, when, the question being about to be put, on a reference to the committee of the whole Mr. STEWART moved that the bill, for the present, lie on the table; which motion was carried. IN SENATE-MONDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1825. The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee on the Judiciary, unfavorable to the petition of Ebenezer Oliver and others, together with the motion to strike out of the resolution accompanying, the word "not,' so as to reverse the report. The debate on this subject was resumed, and continued during the whole of this day's sitting. Mr. VAN BUREN spoke at great length against the claims of the petitioners, grounding his objections on these points: That this question had been once decided by a competent tribunal, established at the instance of the parties seeking relief; that it was against the policy of the government, and against the public interest, to open these proceedings, and, if they were opened, there was nothing in these claims founded either in justice or equity. Mr. KELLY, Mr. SEYMOUR, and Mr. MILLS, each spoke at considerable length in reply to Mr. VAN BUREN, and in favor of the claim of the petitioners; after which, the Senate adjourned. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.-SAME DAY. Mr. POINSETT, of South Carolina, offered the following resolution: "Resolved, That an immediate representation ought to be made to the Captain General of Cuba, setting forth the losses and injuries inflicted upon the property and persons of the citizens of the United States, by pirates, issuing from that island, and returning thither with their Mr. POINSETT observed, that he was induced to offer these resolutions, in order to bring to the view of the House, what he believed to be the only effectual means to suppress piracy in the West India seas. It is sufficiently apparent, said Mr. P from all the accounts we have received of the atrocities committed by the pirates of Cuba, that the authorities of that island have not as yet taken any measures to check them. From long impunity, the pirates have become very numerous-not less, in his opinion, than 60 or 70,000 persons being enthemselves into a society under the name of Muselmanes (Muselmen,) known to each other by signs, as Free Masons are, and governed by rules and regulations well calculated to screen each other from the pursuit of justice. They are protected by magistrates and officers of government, who profit by their plunder, and they are encouraged by merchants, who purchase their goods at a low price. It is to be presumed, that the authorities of the Island dare not molest them, for they are to be seen openly walking the streets of Havana and Matanzas— nay, the entire population of Regla, a town in the Bay of Havana, is composed of pirates. Such is the insolence of these men, that the chiefs, who are perfectly well known, and who pass by fictitious names, frequently issue proclamations, threatening the officers of government with their vengeance if they should dare to in which those officers stand of the pirates, that when take any measures against them. And such is the awe Lieutenant Gregory anchored the U. S. shooner Grampus in the harbor of Matanzas, and by exercising great vigilance, prevented these miscreants from issuing forth to plunder and destroy, he was earnestly and repeatedly urged by the Governor of that place to depart, declaring that his longer continuance there might cause an insurrection. The local authorities of the island appear, then, not to have the power of punishing the pirates, even if they had the inclination to do so. But, if the Captain General of Cuba does not possess the means of preventing the commission of further atrocities by these monsters in human shape, let him say so-let us know the fact, that we may adopt other and more effectual measures to protect the property and persons of our citizens. The evil, said Mr. P. has arrived at such a height, that it has become the indispensable duty of this government to check it. It is not to be borne, that Pirates should openly fit out expeditions against the peaceful commerce of the world, from an island in the immediate vicinity of the United States, and that, after burning our vessels and murdering our citizens, they should be allowed to return thither with their plunder, and sell it in the prin cipal cities, under the eye of the public authorities of that island. It is not to be tolerated, that these Pirates should be protected by Magistrates and officers of Government, who profit by their plunder, or be encouraged by the Spaniards in the Island, in order to gratify their revenge for they regard us with deadly hatred, on account of the course we have thought proper to pursue, in relation to the contest between Spain and her former Colonies. It may, possibly, said Mr. P. be objected to the first resolution, that this government ought not to treat di rectly with the Captain General of Cuba, whose autho rity is delegated by Spain. Mr. P. disclaimed any in |