[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

apply to the case now before us; but it is de- the particular case before him by a departure
nied that this was the only, or indeed, the from it, he assigned, as a second reason for his
chief objection urged by President Washing. veto on that particular bill, that it allotted to
'ton to that bill. if it had been his only objec- eight of the States more than one member for
tion, it was unnecessary to have given any every 30,000 persons. But allowing the second
other. But another was giver, and the com to be a substantive and sufficient ubjection of
mittee are compelled to give to it the meaning itslef in that particular case, it still leaves the
which its language clearly imports. It was the first to operate with all its force, and prohibits
first objection assigned. It was a substantive the fractional parts of the population of the se-
objection in itself there is no one propor- veral States from being consolidated, and the
tion or divisor, which, applied to the respec- fractions of some States from being, in effect,
tive numbers of the States, will gield the num- represented by members arbitrarily assigned to,
ber and allotment proposed by the bill”—and and chosen by the people of other States. The
did not depend, in the slightest degree, for its substance of both ubjections is, that, in appor-
force, upon the second. Indeed, the commit- tioning representatives among the several sinies,
tee regard it as his chief objection; and, in whatever may be the proportion, ratio, or divi-
confirmation of that opinion, they find it stated sor proposed, it must be applied to the sepa.
in Judge Marshall's Life of Washington, that, rate and respective numbers of each Slate; and
" weighing the arguments which were as such a ratio cannot be applied as a divisor to
urged on each side of the question, the Presi. a fractiunal remainder in any Slate, which is, of
dent was confirned in the opinion that the po- necessity, less than itself, such fractional num-
pulati n of each State, and not the population bers found in each of the States must be reject-
of the United States, must give the numbers to ed from all. To do otherwise, would, as the
which alone could be applied, the process by committee think, be to recognize a principle of
which the 'number of representatives was to be consolidation inconsistent with the constiíution
áscertained.” What process? One that should itself, and the early expusition of the clause of
operate in some States and not in others. The that instrument which they hare been examin-
objection required a process of a different cha- ingApplying this construction of that instru-
racter. It required a "proportion or divisor,'|'ment, which the believe to be the true one, to
or, what is the same thing, some uniform rule the amendment before us, and it must be re.
which would apply to, and be operative upon, jected, although no State, in this particular case,
the separate numbem or masses of population, would have a representative for less than 30,000
in each and all of the States. The question of its own numbers. The question thus solemn-
presented by the bill, and decided by the first ly settled in 1792, by a President who was a
ubjection, was

, whether, according to the profmember of the Convention which framed the visions of the Constitution, any State could have constitution, and by a Congress many of whose alloted to it a number representing a constitu- members bad been members also of the Conency, which, although existing in the United vention which framed, or the States which rati. Slates, was not found in that State! Upon this fied it, has been acquiesced in ever since, and question, the President took the opinions of no atlempl, until the present, has been serioushis cabinet, Mr. Jefferson, the Secretary of ly made to revive the old discussion. The on. State

, and Mr. Randolph, the Attorney Gene- 'y instance since, in which such a proposition ral, were of opinion that the scheme of the bill has been made, the committee find in the Jourwas in violation of the Constitut on. General nals of the House of Representatives of 1822, Knox, the Secretary of War

, was undecided, pending the consideration of the apportionment and Mr. Hamilion doubted, "thinking that, bill of that year; when it was proposed, that from the vagueness of expression in the clause " each member hereafter elected to the House, relating 18 the subject, neither construction shall represent the same number of persons, could be absolutely rejected ” With these entitled to be represented, as neurly as may be opinions of his cabinet before him, and upon practicuble

, agreeably

, to the fourth census.”fall deliberation, President Washington thought this proposition met with no favor, and was that, as the Constitution required an apportion, immediately rejected by a large vote, upon ayes ment of representatives among the several and nues, the vore being in its favor 43, and a States according to their respective numbers, the gainst it 125; it does not seem to have been sesame ratio or divisor which was applied to the riously pressed. In this case Gen. Washingnumbers of any state to show its proportion of ton's second objection for his veto of 1792, did the representatives, must be also applied to the not apply any more than it does now in the case respective numbers of each of the states to show before us, and the committee are bound to their several proportions. Seeing that there conclude that the large vote of three to one by was no one ratio, proportion, or divisor, whichi, which it was rejected, rested exclusively upon when so applied, would yield the number and the ground taken by him, and the reasons asallotment proposed by the bill before him, he signed in his first objection. put his veio ipon it, and assigned this as his Rčason, precedent, and acquiescence, would first

, and, as the committee regard it, his prin- seem, therefore, to place this question on cipal reason for so doing.

grounds where it ought never to be disturbed. With a view, probably, of giving special ap. if Congress now yield to the principles assumed plication of this construction of the constitution, by the amendment of the Senate, it must be and of showing what effects were produced in upon the supposition, that the constitution ex

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]


pected and intended an apportionment which York. But the increase of New York, in pope.
should produce equality as to fraetions, in each lation, for the last ten years, has been nearly
State. This surely never was the case. But, 40 1.6 per centum, whilst that of those sever
it is said, we must approach equality as neur Staies has been but 124 per cent. Is this ar
as may be.This is more speciouskhan solid. apportionment “as neur as may be," among
See where such a principle will carry us. We these States, according to their respective num
are at present to represent fractions greater than bers, or is it not, in fact, more unequal and un
one half of the cunstitutional number, taken as just than the inequality complained of in the
a ratio or common divisor. That may not be House bill?
"as near as may be.Descend to a represen The committee refer, also, to the table C, **
tative for a fourth or an eighth, and you may be show what would have been the operation or
nearer still, and the commitiee see no limit to representing major fractiuns, if it had beer
the extention of the principle down to a unit, adopted at the several apportionments of repre
except, indeed, the arbitrary discretion of Con- sentatives, and, also, what its operation now is
gress; for the representative of a fourth frac-by the Senate's amendment. From which,
tion bears the same relation to the representa - among others, this fact appears, that the State
tive of a half Meclion, that the latter does to the of North Carolina, at every former apportion-
representative of a whole, and thus an inequality ment, would have been entitled to one addi.
may be really produced among the States, too tional representative, whilst the State of Mas-
intolerable to be quietly submitted to. sachusetts would never, until now, have been

There is one plain view of this question, entiiled to such additional representative. By
which may be presented in very few words, the amendment of the Senate, however, North
which ought to be conclusive. According to Carolina is now excluded from a representative
the amendment, eleven States out of twenty- for a fraction, and Massachusetis is now entitled
four are to have a representative, cach, for a-to a representative for a fruction. Nou is it the
bout twenty five thousund persons, and each o least of the objections to the plan assumed by
the other thirteen States have to produce twice the Senate, that it demonstrates, if the princi-
that number, or very near it, for each represen- ple be correct, the injustice which many of the
tative apportioned to them, The plan, there- States have suffered at the hands of their owo
fore, is partial, unequal, and unknown to the representatives at all former apportionments
constitution, and the constructions put upon it nor can the committee adopt, at the presen:
for forty years and upwards.

dlay, a 'principle, which if true, would be. The views thus presented, it would seem, reproach to all the preceding functionaries of ought to be entirely conclusive upon this subo the Government, both legislative and exccutive, ject; but the equality supposed to be attained who liave heretofore acted upon the subject. by the amendment, as the committee have al There is still another light in which this sukready reinarked, is more specious than solid.ject 'may be presented, to show whether we Eleven members are to be given for fractions.- are not, in fact, further from equality if we of these, the State of Delaware is to have one. adopt the amendment, than we shall be if we Her whole populatiou iş 75,432. If she, then, adbere to the bill sent from this House to the is to have two representatives for that number, Senate. Let us compare a few of the States and equality is the object, 'every other State with each other under the original bill, ani ought io have in the same proportion. Apply under the amendment. By the original bill, tie this rule to the púpulation of the other States, inequality between the unrepresented fractions and we will find that New York, which has on- of Maryland and Virginia was 2,440; by the ly forty by the amendment, ought to have tisty- amendment, Maryland is over represented one; that Pennsylvania, which has twenty-eight, 23,592, an additional member being assigned ought to have thirty-six. To see the propor. to that State for a fraction, and Virginia, by the tionate number to which, according to the rule amendment, (that State having no representa. assumed by the amendment, each of the States tive assigned to her for a fraction,) is under rewould be entitled, the committee beg leave to presented 21,488; so that to ascertain the in. refer to the table annexed to this report, mark- equally between those iwo Siales, the number ed A. They beg leave, also, to refer to the over represented in the one, and the number table B, to show the unequal operation of the under represented in the other, must be added plan of the Senate by a comparison between together, which will produce the number different States ; from which it appears, that 45,080, which denotes the exact inequality the seven States of New Hampshire, New Jer- between them. Now the inequality cualplain. sey, Delaware, Maryland, Souih Carolina, Lou- ed or in the bill, is not so great as this between isiana, and Alabama, have an aggregate popu any two States. By the bill, Vermont has the lation of 1,959,960.' The State of New York largest, and Georgia the smallest, unrepresent. has a population of 1,918,552. Tbese seven od traction; and the difference between them States having but 41,407 of representative po- is 41,636. In like manner, the inequality bepulation more than New York, have, neverthetween the unrepresented fractions of the States less, forty-four representatives assigned to them of North Carolina and South Carolina was, by by the Senate's amendment, whilst New York the bill, 6,078. By the amendment, the in. has only forty, representatives. With a differ- equality between those two Slates is 41,577.ence of population of only 41,407, these seven By the bill, the frequality between the un. States have four more representatives than New represented fractions of ile States of Maine and

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Delaware, was 9,899. By the amendment, Now, work out the various proportions thus:' as the inequality between those two States is the whole number of people of the United 37,713.

States is to 250, so is the whole number of By the bill, the inequality between the un- people in each State to the number of repre. represented fractions of the States of Pennsyl- sentatives to which each State is entitled--and vania and Alabama, was 11,536. By the amend it will be seen that the number thus found to ment, the inequality between those two States belong to each State, is exactly the number is 35,834. The committee will not extend the assigned to each by the bill, and that, besides comparison between States further, but refer the number of members assigned to each State, the House to table D, from which it will be the amount of which is equal to 240, there will easy to calculate the relative inequality between also be found in each of the 24 answers, 24 the unrepresented fractions of any two States fractions of 24 different values, the aggregate according to the bill, and also according to the of all which fractions will be exactly equal to amendment proposed by the Senate. And it 10, and each of which being remainders, less may well be questioned whether the amend than integers, must be lost. So that the result ment attains, in any degree, the object which is precise.y the same, whether a ratio be taken it professes, of making an apportionment among and applied to the States respectively, or the respective States, “as near as may be, whether the number of which the House shall according so their respective numbers. Indeed consist is first fixed in the mind, and then the the committee are of opinion that, if the con proportion of each State, by a simple process stitutional objection, which they believe to be in common arithmetic, is ascertained. In both well founded, against the principle assumed by cases, the due proportion between the States, the amendment was removed, that still, so får each losing its own frac:lon, is equally prefrom being a nearer approach to equality, it is, served, and must therefore be an apportionin fact, as between many of the States, more ment according to the precepts of the Conunequal and unjust than the bill itself as it stitution. passed this House; ihe inequalities of which it To the Senate's plan no such rule of prois its professed' purpose to remedy. The table portion can be applied. No process or proD exhibits, also, the relative effects of the two portion based upon the population of the States, plans as compared with each other, upon the respectively, of the United States; and the States respectively. It gives the relative rate number 251 assumed by the amendment as the per cent. of the representative population of number of the House, will give to eleven of the each State, compared with that of the whole States the number assigned to them respecUnited States; the rate per cent. of the repre- tively by the amendment. The amendment, sentation of each State, compared with the therefore, does not apportion representatives whole representation according to the amend- among the States according to any rule of proment of the Senate, the rale per cent. which portion, and is inconsistent, therefore, with the each State is over or under represented by the requirement of the Constitution. scheme of the Senate's amendment, and the

For a more ready reference to the history of increase per cent. of population of each State the legislation of Congress on this subject, the from 1820 10 1830.

committee havę appended to this report ex. The commitee, in conclusion, beg leave 10 tracts from the Journals of the two Houses, from present one other view of this subject, for the which it will be seen iba: every attempt to propurpose of showing that the bill of the House cure a representation of fractions has been apportions representatives to the States, res

resisted and defeated. pectiveli, according to the rules of proportion,

The committee recommend to the House to and that the amendment of the Senate does adhere to the practical construction given to

the clause of the Constitution in question, by The ratio 47,700 assumed by the bill, and the enlightened patriols and statesman who applied as a common divisor to the population have so solemnly and repeatedly adjudged it. of the States respectively, produces a House of

They recommend to the House the following 240 members

; and the number assigned to each resolution: State, is iis due proportion of the whole, as

Resolved, That this House do disagree to the may be easily ascertained by working out 24 amendment of the Senate to the said bill. sums in the rule of three. Thus the census has given us the population of each State, and the

CONGRESSIONAL. population of the whole United States; the bill gives a House of 240 members; but in making HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. the apportionment of them among the States,

FRIDAY, Mar 11. in each of the twenty-four States there are found fractions, which, when added together, THE TRIAL OF SAMUEL HOUSTON. are found to be equal, at the ratio fixed by the


, to 10 members; add the 10, thus lost by The House then, in pursuance of the order fractions, 10 240, the number of the House, and of the preceding day, proceeded with the trial you have 250, which would be the number of of General Houston, and Mr. BURGES, in a the House if the ratio of 47,700 was applied to long and eloquent argument, urged the propri. the consolidated population of the Union, in-ety and necessity of vindicating the violated stead of to that of the States respecuvely.riglits of the representatives of the people.


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Mr. ARCHER followed, and contended that Randolph, J. Reed, Rencher, Root, Russel,
the Hole did not constitutionally possess the Semmes, W. B. Shepard, A. H. Shepperd,
power to punish in the present case.

Slade, Smith, Southard, Spence, Stewart,
Mr. KERR, of Maryland, next addressed the Storrs, Sutherland, Taylor, Tompkins, Tracy,
House in support of the right to punish for the Vance, Verplanck, Vinton, Wardwell

, Wash-
contempt which he maintained had been com. ington, Watmough, Wilkin, Wheeler, Elisha
mitted by the accused in the assault upon Mr. Woittlesey, F. Whttlesey, E. D. While, Wick-

liff, Williams, and Young.–106.
Mr. DICKSON, of New York, obtained the NAYS— Messrs. Alexander, R. Allen, An-
Aoor at six o'clock.

derson, Angel, Archer, Ashley, J. Bates,
Mr. SEMMES moved a postponement of Beardsley, Bell, Bergen, Bethune, J. Blair,
further proceedings till Monday, but the mo- Boon, Bouck, Bouldin, John Brudhead, J. C.
tion was negatived without a division, Brodhead, Bucher, Carrbreleng, Carr, Carson,

Mr. DICKERSON then entered into an ar- Chandler, Claiborne, Clay, Clayton, Connor, gument to show, in the first place, the posses. Craig, Davenport, Dayan, Doubleday, Drayton, sion of a power by the House to punish for a Fitzgerald Ford, Foster, Gaither, Gilmore, breach of privilege; and, in the next place, the Gordon, T. H. Hall, w. Hall, Hummons, Har necessity of exercising it in the present in- per, Hawes, Hawkins, Hoffman, Holland, stance.

Horn, Hubbard, Jarvis, Jewett, R. M. John. Mr. D. concluded at about eight o'clock- son, C. Johnson, C. C. Jolinston, Kavanagh, when

A. King, J. King, Lamar, Lansing, Leavitt

, Mr. EVANS, of Maine, asked for the ayes Lecompte, Lent, Lewis, Lyon, Mann, Mardis, and noes on the question of the amendment of Mason, McCarty, Wm. McCoy, McIntire, G. Mr. HUN'IINGTON to declare the accused guil- E. Mitchell, T. R. Mitchell, Muhlenberg ty of a contempt, and a violation of the privi- Nuckolls, Pierson, Pluromer, Polk, E. C. leges of the House.

Reed, Roane, Soule, Speight, Standifer, Ste-
The call being sustained, by the requisite phens, F. Thomas, P Thomas, W. Thomp:
number, they were ordered.

son, J. Thomson, Ward, Wayne, Weeks, and
Mr. EVERETT, of Vermont, moved a call Worthington-89.
of the House, upon which question, likewise, So Samuel Houston was declared guilty of a
Mr. Pols asked for the yeas and nays, which contempt, and of a violation of the privileges
were ordered and taken, when the call was or- of the House.
dered by a vote of ayes 166, noes 65.

The question was then of agreeing to the
The call was thien proceeded in, and conti- resolution as amended, which was carried in
nued until 193 members answered to their thè affirinative.

Mr. CLAY, of Alabama, offered an amendMr. WICKLIFFE moved a suspension of the inent, declaring it to be inexpedient to proceed call, and, upon taking the vote upon this mo- further in the charge against Samuel Houston, tion, Mr. TarLOR, of New York, and Mr. Mc- and that he forth with be discharg-d from the INTYNE, of Maine, were appointed tellers. custody of the Sergeant at-Arms.

The proposition was negatived, ayes 83 Mr. CLAY shortly observed, in support of noes 90.

his motion, that the accused had already been The call was renewed, and several members in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms for a were excused on account of sickness, or from month, which he thought, a sufficient punisliother unavoidable or necessary causes of ab. ment.

Mr. HUNTINGTON moved to amend, by
The call was, then, on the motion of Mr: striking out all after the word Resolved, and
CLAY, of Alabama, suspended without a divi- inserting,

i hal Saml. Houston be brought to the bar of The question was taken on Mr. HUNTINGTON's the House on Monday next at 12 o'clock, and amendment, and decided in the affirmative, as be there reprimanded by the SPEAKER, for the follows:

contempt and violation of the privileges of the

. Adams, C. Allan, Allison, House, of which he has been guliy; and that
Appleton, Armstrong, Arnold, Babcock, Banks, he be then discharged from the custody of the
J. Barbour, Barnwell, Barringer, Barstow, I. Sergeant-at-Arms.
C. Bates. John Blair, Briggs, Bullard, Burd, Resolved, That Samuel Houston be exclud-
Burges, Cahoon, Choate, Coke, i. Condict

, led from the exercise of the privilege conferred
S. Condi', E. Cooke, B. Cooke, Corwin, Coul by the 13th standing rule of the House.
ter, Crane, Crawford, Creighton, Daniel, J. Da Mr. DAVIS, of South Carolina, asked if the
vis, W. R. Davis, Dearborn, Denny, Dewart, effect of the second resolution would not be
Dickson, Doddridge, Duncan, Ellsworth, G. E- to repeal tue rule of the House, and whether,
vans, J. Evans, E. Everett, H. Everett, Felder, as such, it would not require a vote of two-
Grennell, Griffin, Heister, Hodges, Hughes, thirds.
Huntington, Itrie, Ingersoll, Irvin, Jenifer,

The SPEAKER referred to the rule in

, Kennon, H. °King, Kerr, Letcher, question, and to the 104th rule of the House,
Marshall, Maxwell, R. McCoy, McDuffie, Mc- and decided that the resolution went to change
Kay, McKennon, Mercer, Milligan, Newnan, at least partially, the rule, and would of course
Newton, Pearce, Pendleton, Pitcher, Potts, Irequire a vote of two-thirds.

[ocr errors]



[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Wo dered.


Mr. MERCER appealed from the decision of would be awarded adequate to the crime which the Chair.

a majority of that House had decided to have Some further remarks were made by WICK been committed. The LIFFE, and Mr. ELLSWORTH.

Mr. HARPER moved the previous question, Wiele

Mr. LAMAR asked for the' ayes and noes on but it was not seconded. Es the question of the appeal, and they were or The question was then taken on the first

amendment of Mr. HUNTINGTON, to reprimand The SPEAKER stated the case to the House, General Houston at the bar of the House. Å and the reasons which bad actuated the Chair It was decided in the affirmative. in its decision.

YEAS-Messrs. Adams, C. Allan, Allison, Bali Mr. MERCER, Mr. McDUFFIE, and Mr. Appleton, Armstrong, Arnold, Babcock, Banks, li ADAMS, contended that the rule in question J. S. Barbour, Barnwell, Barringer, Barstow,

did not apply to the resulution offered by Mr. L C. Bates, James Blair, Briggs, Bullard, Burd, HUNTINGTON.

Burges, Cahoon, Choate, Coke, Collier, L. Mr. WAYNE, Mr. SUTHERLAND, Mr. Condict, $. Condit, E. Cooke, B. Cooke, VINTON, and Mr. ARCHER, followed in a Corwin, Coulter, Crane, Crawford, Creighton, desultory discussion, and upon a vote the ap- Daniel, J. Davis, W. R. Davis, Dearborn, Den. peal was sustained; ayes 89, noes 106. ny, Dewart, Dickson, Doddrige, Duncan, Ells. So the resolution was declared to be in or worth, George Evans, J. Evans, E. Everett, H.

Everett, Felder, Grennell, Griffin, Heister, The resolution of Mr. Clay, and the amend. Hodges, Hughes, Huntington, Ihrie, Ingersol, ment of Mr. HUNTINGTX, were then read. Irvin, Jenifer, Kendall, Kennon, H. King, Kerr,

Mr. LAMAR asked for a division of the Letcher, Mar: hall, Maxwell, R. McCoy, Mc. question upon the amendment.

Duffie, McKay, McKennan, Mercer, Milligan, Mr. WICKLIFFE asked for the ayes and Newnun, Newton, Pearce, Pendleton, Pitcher, noes on the proposition to amend, and they Potts, Randolp!, J. Reed, Rencher, Root, Ruswere ordered.

sel, Semmes, W. B. Shepard, A. H. Shepperd, Mr. ARCHER asked the House to work out (Slade, Smith, Southard, Sperice, Stewart, Siorrs, the proposition they had laid down, and to im. Sutherland, Taylor, Tompkins, Tracy, Vance, prison the respondent. It would then be com. Verplanck, Vin: on, Washington, Watrough, petent to try the question before a judicial tri- Wilkin, E. Whittlessey, F. Whiulessey, E. D. bunal, by a habeas corpus. A reprimand was White, Wickliffe, Williams, Young.-106. the terror of school boys; and supposing Gen. NAYS-Messrs. Alexander, R. Allen, An. Houston should refuse to receive it, how were derson, Angel, Archer, Ashley, J. Bates, they to proceed?

Beardsley, Bell, Bergen, Bettiune Jolin Blair, Mr. HUNTINGTON said, that if the bonora- Bouck, Bouldin, J. Brodhead, J. C. Brodhead, ble member wished 10 try the right of the Bucher, Cambreleng, Carr, Carson, Chandler, House, in such a way, he might do so by mov. Claiborne, Clay, Clayton, Connor, Craig, Da.. ing his proposition hinself, as an amendment tofvenport, Dayan, Doubleday, Drayton, Fitzge. the amendment then offered to the House; orrald, Ford, Foster, Gaither, G.Imore, Gordon, if he wished to send the maiter to another trivT. H. Hall, Wm. Hall, Hammons, Harper, bunal, to see if they would sustain the rights of Hawes, Hawkins, Hoffman, Hogan, Holland, that House, it would be an easy thing to do Horn, Hubbard, Jars, Jewett, R. M. Johnthat. Mr. H. objected to the words of the son, C. Johnson, C. C. Johnston, Kavanagh, gentleman from Virginia, that the proposition J. King, Lamar, Lansing, Leavitt, Lecompte, then offered, "looked like a wish to creep out"Lent, Lowis, Lyon, Mann, Mard's, Mason, Mc. of the affair. So for from that, he had adopted Carty, Wm. McCoy, McIntire, T. R. Mitchell, the proposition as believing it to be the besi Muhlenberg, Nuckolls, Pierson, Plummer, Polk, adapted to express the sense of the House up. E. C. Reed, Roane, Soule, Speight, Standifer, on this violation of its rights.

Stephens, F. Thomas, P. Thomas, W ThompMr. THOMPSON, of Georgia, said he hoped son, J. Thomson, Ward, Wardwell

, Wayne, the game would be played out. After having Weeks, Wheekr, Worthington.-89. convicted the accused on a charge which had

So the resolution was agreed to. been characterized as one of a most dagivious Mr. CARSON expressed a hope that the kind, he could not conceive that it was an ade- second member of the amendment would not quate punishment merely to bring the accused be agreed to. He adverted to General Housto the bar of that House to receive a reprimand; tun's honorable character and conduct when a especially when the journals of the House would member of that House, and to the services be show a most respectable minority yote , 10 dis had rendered, and the wound he had received charge and exhonerate him altogether. As to in the defence of his country. the latter branch of the resolution, that might Mr. HUNTINGTON shortly urged the ne. be considered, perhaps, as an adequate punish- cessity of acting upon this resolution, which ment, but could they carry it with effect if they had been agreed to, declaring the accused adopted it. Suppose the people of Tennessee guilty of a breach of privilege. should think proper to send Mr. Houston as Mr. CAMBRELENG hoped this part of the their representative to this House, would they amendment would be rejected ; it transcended in that case be able to enforce their resolution even those powers which were exercised by the of exclusivn? He trusted that some punishment British Parliament ; according to the arbitrary

[ocr errors]
« ForrigeFortsett »