Lewis B. Sturges, George Sullivan, Samuel Taggart, H. OF R. venson Archer, David Bard, Josiah Bartlett, William W. Bibb, William Blackledge, Robert Brown, William Butler, John C. Calhoun, James Cochran, John ClopNAYS-Willis Alston, jr., William Anderson, Ste- ton, Lewis Condict, William Crawford, Roger Davis, friends of the measure, with open doors, without dis- represented, in the fragment of a speech dedicated to closing his particular motion, he engages in an argu- my constituents. When this publication first apment which, after consuming one hour, is now denom- peared, I was content to let it pass without notice. inated a fragment only; and, when required by the The facts, as I believed, were too notorious to be disHouse, reluctantly submits the negative proposition torted. The very circumstance that the Speaker of that it is not expedient at this time, under existing the House of Representatives should feel himself recircumstances, to go to war with Great Britain! Can duced to a defence of his decisions in the public prints I be mistaken in believing that the refusal of the seemed to me, of itself, enough to satisfy all reflecting House to consider such a proposition, so brought for- men that there must be something wrong at bottom: ward, will be approved by the good sense of an intel- and my ambition did not aspire to the honor of a newsligent public? It is said that a precedent for such a paper contest with any man, however high his dignity motion is to be found in the motion of Mr. Sprigg, in the State. I was, therefore, content to let the matmade in 1798. That gentleman, when the House was ter rest where it stood. But my friends have urged in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, me not to permit this publication, although it derives offered three resolutions, of which one was negative, its sole claim to consideration from its official charand the other two affirmative. The subject before the acter, to pass unnoticed, lest the public mind, so habitcommittee was the President's Message of 19th March, uated to authority, should be misled by it. In defer1798. At that time the practice (now no longer existence to their judgment, I enter on this task, with a ing) prevailed to discuss such messages in full. That reluctance, the evidence of which will be found in the message was a war message. Being under consider- cold and sluggish manner in which it is executed. ation, it was the nature of an affirmative proposition for war, to which Mr. Sprigg's motion, in the nature of an amendment, was the negative. The message was the text, the primary subject; his motion was incidental and ancillary. But Mr. R.'s motion was primitive, and not appertunant to any pending question. In the instance of Mr. Sprigg, no point was made whether the committee would consider the proposition. Perhaps, being a direct response to the message, they were bound to consider it, or not to act upon the message. Out of Mr. R.'s motion, supposing it adopted, no positive act could grow. It would be as if the House should formally adopt an original resolution that they would not pass a particular law. The cases of Mr. R. and Mr. S. are not analogous. Supposing, however, that they were, in all their material circumstances, what would be proven? Only that a body, having the power to prescribe the time when it will consider the subjects brought before it, has seen fit at one time (no reason then existing against it) to deliberate upon a question, which at another time (when there are cogent reasons against it) it has not thought proper to consider. The right of the House of Representatives to regulate its own proceedings is quite manifest, whether we advert to the express provision of the Constitution, or to the nature and properties of a deliberative body. It is undoubtedly responsible for the abuse of that right, no less than it is for the abuse of any other power with which it is invested. Whether, in the instance under consideration, it has so abused its authority as to excite alarm or justify censure, will be justly determined by the candor of the public, to whom alone it is amenable. H. CLAY. WASHINGTON, June 17, 1812. From the National Intelligencer of June 8, 1812. In the "National Intelligencer" of the 18th of June there appeared a production signed "H. Clay," which purports to supply "the omission of material circumstances, in relation to a late transaction in the House of Representatives," and to "set fully and accurately" before the public that matter, which the writer more than insinuates to have been partially and incorrectly 12th CoN. 1st SESS.-47 Of all men, it especially behooves him who brings a charge against his neighbor, to avoid the error which he reprehends. There is something repugnant to our natural sense of justice to behold any man, however high his station, or great his claims to knowledge, reproving in another that failing, of which he himself, in his own person, affords a striking example. We would not endure, even from Solomon himself-a king, and the wisest of mankind-a reproof to the meanest of his subjects, because he did not confine himself to a single wife. This repugnance will be heightened when the example is exhibited in the very act of rebuke; and we reach the last stage of disgust, when we discover that the accused is innocent of the charge laid at his door-the accuser alone guilty. But I will close my "prefatory remarks," and now proceed to specify some of the instances of omission of material circumstances, or of unfairness of statement, on the part of Mr. Clay. It was not "in the commencement of his observations that Mr. Randolph was called to order by Mr. Wright." Mr. R. had been speaking some time; had Government with its agent at Paris, and had advanced read several extracts from the correspondence of our considerably into the case of the New Orleans Packet, when he was interrupted by Mr. Wright. The Speaker's decision that Mr. R. had a right to proceed, inasmuch as he had declared his intention to submit a motion, and his permitting that gentleman to proceed, according to his own statement, for at least one hour," are facts conclusive of the point of order. It does not become me to question the ignorance, pleaded by the Speaker, of "the case on which his friend Dr. Bibb decided, while acting as his substitute in the Chair." Although the circumstance is certainly an extraordinary one, I shall not insinuate a doubt that the Speaker was so disengaged, or engaged, while out of the Chair, that he did not observe an occurrence, which attracted the general attention of the House and of the spectators. This transaction took place on the 29th of May; Mr. Clay's publication bears date the 17th of June. I cannot sufficiently admire his want of that dangerous quality, curiosity, manifested by his refraining for three weeks from mak John Dawson, Joseph Desha, Samuel Dinsmoor, Elias Earle, William Findley, James Fisk, Thomas Gholson, Peterson Goodwyn, Isaiah L. Green, Felix Grundy, Bolling Hall, Obed Hall, John A. Harper, Aylett ing himself acquainted with the decision of Dr. Bibb, who lodges next door to him, and under the same roof. "I will not say what was the case upon which that gentleman, (Dr. Bibb,) while he was so kind as to represent me, was called upon to decide"-Mr. Clay's letter, the first column. Again-"It results that between the decisions of Mr. Bibb and mine, certainly between my own, there existed no discrepancy." What! No "discrepancy" proved to exist between an unknown and a known decision? The train of reasoning which leads to results like this is a new and invaluable discovery in logic. It far surpasses the old method of reasoning from the known to the unknown, and is even an improvement upon the modern practice of reasoning to things unknown from things more unknown-ignotum per ignotius. Mr. Bibb's decision, on the repetition of the call to order by Mr. Calhoun, was substantially the same with that of the Speaker, on the interruption by Mr. Wright. And, as Mr. Clay may not have "particularly directed his attention to this point," also, I beg leave to inform him that the "discrepancy" between himself and Dr. Bibb may be found in the recorded vote of the latter gentleman on the Journals of the House, affirming the Speaker to have decided contrary to order. But what reasonable man will, for a moment, attach any blame to the Speaker for ignorance of the " discrepancy" which existed between Dr. Bibb's and his own decision, when he appears unconscious of his "discrepancy" with himself. That he should forget his own repeated decisions, on former occasions, is not so much to be wondered at, as that he should appear insensible to the manifest fact, that twice within the space of an hour he should have reversed his own opinions. Yet such unquestionably was the case.. On the subject of those former decisions, I will refer members of the House to the debate in conclave on the embargo bill, when, at a very late hour, Mr. Stanford and Mr. Randolph were both sustained by the Chair in the same right against the impatience of the House; and I would call the general recollection to the case of Mr. Randolph's motion to amend Mr. Macon's proposition to afford relief to the people of Caraccas. In this case, the Speaker himself interrupted Mr. Randolph, but as soon as he understood he was about to make a motion, withdrew his objection, and sustained Mr. Randolph's right to the floor against repeated calls to order from different quarters of the House. After delivering his sentiments on the, motion which he contemplated to make, Mr. R. concluded by submitting it to the House. It behooves me to admit, that when I presented my motion "under the compulsion of the House," the Speaker did reply "that it depended upon my own pleasure to withhold, or offer it," which reply is not stated, it seems, in the "fragment," and appears to constitute one of the omissions, on my part, of which Mr. Clay complains. Reader, I was not unconscious of the omission at the time, but I had no disposition to inform the world, that mockery was added to the injustice with which I had been treated; nor can I comprehend the interest which Mr. Clay can feel in making the fact public. There was no compulsion, mark you!" It depended entirely upon my own pleasure to offer the MAY, 1812. Hawes, John M. Hyneman, Rich'd M. Johnson, Joseph Kent, William R. King, Abner Lacock, Joseph Lefever, Peter Little, William Lowndes, Aaron Lyle, Thomas Moore, William McCoy, Samuel McKee, Alexmotion or to withhold it," and take my seat in silence. In like manner there was no compulsion used upon those unhappy people of old, who obstinately and perversely imagined themselves to be exiled from Rome. They were only interdicted the use of fire and water so long as they should remain there. No compulsion at all in the case! "It depended entirely upon their own pleasure whether they would go or stay"-and yet these wayward objects of the tender regard of the majority for their rights, fancied themselves under compulsion, and vented their party spleen by leaving their homes in disgust. When the decision was given in favor of Mr. Calhoun's appeal to the Chair, and the motion was submitted in writing, Mr. Randolph asked if he was at liberty to proceed! The Speaker decided that he was. Mr. R. did accordingly proceed for about a minute, when he was again called to order, and the Speaker, declaring that he had given a hasty opinion, reversed his decision. From this an appeal was taken by Mr. R., but withdrawn out of respect to his friend, Mr. Macon, who said that "he had no doubt the decision to reduce the motion to writing and submit it (against which he had voted) was wrong, but the House having established"-Here Mr. Randolph interrupted him and said, that out of respect to his friend, he would withdraw his appeal. This he did under a mistaken idea that Mr. Macon would support, by his vote, the subsequent decision of the Chair. He regretted very much the withdrawal of the appeal, when he afterwards discovered that he had misapprehended the vote which that gentleman was about to have given. It will not escape attention, that the facts stated in the "fragment" of Mr. R.'s speech are few and scarcely accompanied by comment. Let me recapitulate them; 1. The call to order by Mr. Wright; whereupon the Speaker decided that Mr. R. was at liberty to proceed, and accordingly he did proceed, "at least one hour," by Mr. Clay's own statement. 2. The repetition of the call to order, by Mr. Calhoun, when Mr. R. was again supported in his right to the floor by Dr. Bibb. 3. Mr. Calhoun's second call to order; "whereupon the Speaker reversed his own and Dr. Bibb's decision." 4. The Speaker's declaration that it was not necessary to take the vote "to consider," and that Mr. R. was at liberty to continue his argument, and his retraction and reversal of that opinion. Let any man read Mr. Clay's letter to the editor of the National Intelligencer, and then pronounce how far these facts are denied or disproved? I shall not defend the speech against the charge of irrelevancy of the arguments to the motion, brought against it by Mr. Clay. It shall defend itself. Neither shall I stoop to repel the insinuation conveyed in the following passage of the letter-" even after it [the motion] was reduced to writing, it was believed not to be the one originally contemplated by the mover." Such insinuations it is in the power of any man to make. A witty writer-one of the most shrewd observers upon human life and character-has said, that "a certain class of politicians should speak impersonally, to avoid compromitment." Thus, one of this race ought never to say "I hear, or I am told, so and so:" because the ander McKim, Arunah Metcalf, Samuel L. Mitchill, Jeremiah Morrow, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, Stephen Ormsby, Israel Pickens, William Piper, James Pleasants, jr., Benjamin Pond, William M. Richardson, Samuel Ringgold, John Rhea, John Roane, Jonaquestion immediately occurs, Who told you? And he may be called upon for his authority. But, put it impersonally, it is said, it is reported, it is believed, and he is quite safe from any such disagreeable consequences. H. OF R. than Roberts, Ebenezer Sage, Thomas Sammons, Ebenezer Seaver, John Sevier, Adam Seybert, Samuel Shaw, George Smith, John Smith, William Strong, John Taliaferro, George M. Troup, Charles Turner, jr., Robert Whitehill, Richard Winn, Robert Wright. MONDAY, June 1. Mr. FITCH presented a memorial and remonstrance of sundry inhabitants of Washington county, in the State of New York, praying that The manner in which Mr. Clay speaks of my being "all laws authorizing the raising of troops, and acquainted with the projected measure, inasmuch as I all laws interdicting foreign commerce, may be am a member of the Committee of Foreign Relations, repealed; and that a naval force may be graduis calculated to make an impression upon persons unacquainted with the state of affairs at Washington. England, or in any of our State governments, as far Most certainly "on the 30th of May it was not ex- as I am acquainted. The use made of this "rule to pected," by me, at least, or anybody else with whom I consider, which we practice in the House of Repreconversed, that any such measure as "a declaration of sentatives, (which rule does not exist in the Rules war" would "emanate from that committee." On the and Orders of the House,) and the abuse of the precontrary, "it was expected" that a confidential mes-vious question," are utterly subversive of the rights of sage would be received from the President, recom- the minority, for the preservation of which, rules are mending the measure, and the chief of my information chiefly instituted, if we are to credit a high authority, was derived, at second hand, from Mr. Clay himself, [Mr. Onslow;] the majority by their numbers being who, in one of his morning rides to Georgetown, a always able to protect themselves. day or two before, communicated the intelligence to By these a member of the minority may be, and is, one of my colleagues, from whom I received it. The prohibited from making any motion whatsoever; and authority was good; the thing happened accordingly. all discussion precluded at their pleasure on such The President's Message was referred to the Commit- measures as the majority choose to bring forward. It tee of Foreign Relations; by them to a sub-committee is notorious that the previous question, instead of beof three, (of whom I was not one,) and all the agencying applied to its legitimate objects, that is, "when a which I had in the transaction (even subsequently to subject is brought forward of a delicate nature, as to the first of June) was to help to make up a quorum high personages, &c., or the discussion of which may while the manifesto was reading. call forth injurious observations," is brought into It is not possible to make out any other difference play altogether on those great topics which especially between Mr. Sprigg's resolution and mine, except the demand discussion; and hence the recent change of substitution of Great Britain for the words " French the rule which requires a majority to demand the " Republic." The circumstances, too, were similar.vious question," instead of "any five members," as The minority apprehended war, and were anxious to heretofore. Fortunately, the Constitution secures that avert it from the country. Would Mr. Clay's deci "the yeas and nays shall be taken at the requisition of sion have been affected, in case I had added two other one-fifth of the members present;" but even this proresolutions: “one to prevent the arming of merchant vision is greatly evaded by secret sessions, which lock vessels, and the other to provide for the defence of the the vote and the subject from the public eye. coast!"* pre But the practice of the British Parliament is quoted But what at last is the true question in which the in justification of the conduct of the House of Reprepublic are interested? It is, whether, after having been sentatives. I defy any man to show an instance in quibbled into a war by distinctions between "condi- which a member of that Parliament has been subjected tions precedent and conditions subsequent," between to the coercion exercised in the case of Mr. Randolph. "decrees affecting our neutral rights and decrees af-"A motion to proceed to the orders of the day puts by fecting our rights municipally," we shall now, under whatever subject is under consideration;" because the the mask of form, be deprived of the substance of free-orders of the day have there, as they have here, a prefdom of speech in the popular branch of the Legisla-erence over ordinary questions. But there is no mode ture; whether we are content to be cast, and lose forever this invaluable privilege, for some alleged want of nicety in special pleading? The right of illustrating and enforcing his motion, violated for the first time in the case of Mr. Randolph, was the last relic of freedom of debate, which new rules and forced constructions had left untouched. The present practice of the House of Representatives is an anomaly in legislative proceedings. It is new in this country, and there is nothing similar to it in Mr. Sprigg's motion, March 26, 1798. Resolved, That it is the opinion of this committee, that, under existing circumstances, it is not expedient for the United States to resort to war against the French Republic. Resolved, That provision ought to be made by law for restricting the arming of merchant vessels, except in cases which the practice was heretofore permitted. Resolved, That adequate provision be made by law for the protection of our seacoast and the internal defence of the country. in that Parliament, analogous to the one lately devised and set up here, of preventing a member from bringing forward a motion on any subject fit for legislative deliberation, and illustrating and enforcing it by every argument in his power. Such tyranny would not be borne. Neither would they endure that a member of the opposition should be repeatedly interrupted upon the same plea of order, and by the same member On the 25th of May, 1604, is the first instance that I have found of putting the previous question. Sir Thomas Littleton was, therefore, mistaken, when he says, in Grey's Debates, vol. II, page 113, tion, whether the question should be now put? And since, it has "Sir Henry Vane was the first that ever proposed putting a quesalways been the forerunner of putting the thing in question quite out. Sir Robert Howard, in the same debate, says, "This previous question is like the image of the inventor, a perpetual disturbance."-2 Halsell, p. 80. See Jefferson's Manual, under the head of the "Previous Question." ally created for the protection of commerce, and for the defence of our towns and coasts."-Laid on the table. Mr. CHEVES presented sundry resolutions entered into at a meeting of the inhabitants of Charleston, South Carolina, approbatory of the measures of the General Government, and expressive of their determination to support such measures as may be adopted for the maintenance of the rights and honor of the country.-Laid on the table. Mr. JACKSON, from the committee appointed on the 27th ultimo, presented a bill authorizing the discharge of William Peck from his imprisonment; which was read twice, and committed to a Committee of the Whole to-morrow. On motion of Mr. ARCHER, H. OF R. An engrossed bill, supplementary to the act, entitled "An act for dividing the Indiana Territory into two separate governments," was read the third time, and passed. The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for the relief of William D. Beall, which was reported to the House, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. The report favorable to the petition of William and J. G. Ladds, passed through a Committee of the Whole, and was referred to a committee to report a bill. Mr. QUINCY said, that by the provisions of certain laws now in existence, the Consuls and Vice Consuls of the United States were authorized to send home vessels and seamen left destitute in Resolved, That the Committee on the Public foreign ports, and that masters of vessels were Lands be instructed to inquire into the expedi-obliged to receive them at a certain price if it ency of extending the provision of an act, entitled An act granting further time to the purchasers of land in the Territory Northwest of the river Ohio, to complete their payments," to such persons as have purchased fractional sections on the river Ohio, where such fractional sections were by law sold together, and amounted to a greater quantity than 640 acres. 66 The bill for the relief of Clement B. Penrose, went through a Committee of the Whole, and was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill confirming claims to lands in the Mississippi Territory, founded on warrants of survey granted by the Spanish Government of West Florida. The bill was reported with an amendment, which was concurred in by the House, and the bill ordered to be engrossed, and read the third time to-morrow. The resolution was ordered to lie on the table. The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for the relief of Colonel Jonathan Williams. The bill was reported with amendments; which were concurred in by the House, and the bill was ordered to be engrossed, and read the third time to-morrow. should not exceed ten dollars for each man. It had been found, however, in certain cases, that the expense far exceeded that allowance; and, from certain expressions in the law, the former Comptroller did decide that a sum greater than ten dollars per man might be allowed for such service by the Department of State. The course of proceeding in such cases has been regulated by that decision. A new Comptroller, however, had given a different decision, and had considered that the law precluded the allowance of more than ten dollars. This decision, which the Comptroller had grounded on the positive expression of the statute, although it might be correct, the Secretary of State conceived would operate oppressively to the citizen. Under these circumstances he moved the following resolution: Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire whether any alterations are requisite in the several acts relative to Consuls and Vice Consuls, and for the protection of American seamen; and that they have leave to report by bill or otherwise. The resolution was adopted. MISSISSIPPI TERRITORY. Mr. POINDEXTER moved the following resolution: law, to the formation of two States in the Mississippi and they are hereby, requested to give their assent, by Territory: Provided, In the opinion of Congress, a division of said Territory for that purpose should hereafter be expedient. of the Court party, after repeated decisions of the Chair in his favor. The British House of Commons present of the United States of America, in Congress assemResolved by the Senate and House of Representatives their Speaker to the Crown for its (nominal) approba-bled, That the Legislature of the State of Georgia be tion; they even ask for the confirmation of their ancient privileges; but, under this exterior of humility and deference towards the Throne, they have sturdily maintained their rights since the Restoration, and in no legislative assembly is the freedom of speech enjoyed in greater latitude or security. With all their venality and devotion to Ministers, the members of that House know full well that upon the jealous preservation of their privileges depends their weight in the Constitution. It remains to be seen whether an American Congress shall be justified by the public sentiment in outstripping a British House of Commons in ministerial devotion; in prostrating, from motives of caprice, temporary convenience, or party spirit, any one of those great fundamental principles, without a religious observance of which, no free Government can endure. JULY 2, 1812. JOHN RANDOLPH, of Roanoke. Senate had postponed the bill for the erection of Mr. P. said, it would be recollected that the the Territory of Mississippi into a State. The basis of that decision was, that it was inexpedient to form two States out of that Territory, which could not be done without the consent of the Legislature of the State of Georgia, which he therefore wished to obtain. AMERICAN SEAMEN. The House resolved itself into a Commistee of the Whole on the bill for the recovery, protection, and indemnification of American seamen. Mr. CLAY (the Speaker) made a motion for the Committee to rise. He objected to some of the provisions of the bill, though he applauded and fully coincided in its object. He submitted to the gentleman from Maryland, whether, as it was in contemplation to take a measure still more strong, and which would supersede the necessity of the present, they ought not to suspend the decision of the weaker measure till the other was disposed of. At the same time, he pledged himself, for one, if the stronger measure should fail from any cause, that he would agree in the principle of the bill, and afford any aid of his to make its details as perfect as possible. Mr. WRIGHT said, that even war measures would not supersede the necessity of this bill, which contemplated provisions for the support and remuneration of impressed seamen. He should not, however, now make any material opposition to the rising of the Committee; but he hoped they would not suffer such a stain on their character as to permit thousands on thousands of their fellow-citizens to remain in ignominious bondage, under treatment worse than that of galley slaves. The Committee then rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again. SECRET SITTING. A Message was received from the President of the United States, which, when opened, the SPEAKER declared to be of a confidential nature. And the House was cleared of strangers, and so remained until it adjourned. TUESDAY, June 2. H. OF R. that Government will still continue, by fair and honorable negotiation, to endeavor, if possible, to procure settlement of a differences with Great Britain and France, and thereby avert the calamity of war." Mr. MILNOR presented petitions from sundry inhabitants of the city and county of Philadel phia, and county of Delaware, in the State of Pennsylvania, stating their firm and unqualified conviction that the United States are not impelled to war against Great Britain by necessity, nor invited to it by expediency; and that the preservation of peace and the liberation of commerce from domestic restrictions, are absolutely necessary to the true interests of the country. Mr. RODMAN presented several petitions from sundry inhabitants of Northampton county, in the State of Pennsylvania, praying to the same effect with the petitions of sundry other inhabitants of that county, presented on the eleventh ultimo. Mr. BAKER presented a petition from sundry inhabitants of Jefferson county, in the State of Virginia, expressive of their disapprobation of the measures of the Government tending to war with Great Britain, and praying that the restrictions on commerce may be repealed. The SPEAKER presented sundry resolutions adopted at a public meeting of the inhabitants of Richmond and Manchester, in the State of Virginia, expressive of their approbation of the measures of the General Government, and declaring that a prompt, open, and vigorous war against Great Britain, ought to be declared by Congress. The said resolutions, petitions, and memorials, were ordered to lie on the table. A Message was received from the President of The House was cleared of all persons except the United States transmitting copies of a corresthe Members, Clerk, Sergeant-at-Arms, and Door-pondence of the Minister Plenipotentiary of Great keeper, and the doors were closed, and remained Britain with the Secretary of State. so until WEDNESDAY, June 3. Another member, to wit: FRANCIS CARR, from Massachusetts, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat. The House was then cleared of all persons except the Members, Clerk, Sergeant-at-Arms, and Doorkeeper, and the doors were closed, and remained so until THURSDAY, June 4. The House was then cleared, and the doors were closed, and remained so until FRIDAY, June 5. A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have passed the bill "making further provision for settling the claims to land in the Territory of Louisiana;" and the bill "supplemental to the act, entitled 'An act for dividing the Indiana Territory into two separate Governments," with amendments to each. The Senate have also passed a bill "supplementary to an Mr. POTTER presented sundry resolutions adopt-act, entitled 'An act more effectually to provide ed by the Legislature of the State of Rhode Island, expressive of their disapprobation. generally, of the measures pursued by the General Government, and instructed their Senators and Representatives "to use their utmost endeavors to cause the restrictions on commerce to be removed; to prevent the passage of the proposed laws for imposing direct taxes; and to oppose all measures which may be brought forward tending to involve the country in war." Mr. CHITTENDEN presented a petition of sundry inhabitants of the State of Vermont, praying "a repeal of all the restrictions on commerce, and for the organization of the militia of the District of Columbia;" in which amendments and bill they desire the concurrence of this House. And the Senate insist on their amendments disagreed to by this House to the bill "to ascertain and establish the western boundary of the tract reserved for military bounties allowed to the officers and soldiers of the Virginia line on Continental establishment." The House was then cleared of all persons, and the doors were closed, and, after remaining so for some time, they were again opened, and the House adjourned. |