APRIL 26, 1832.]

Question of Privilege.

[H. of R.

and how they would have considered an express statute Their only sphere of duty, the impartial investigation interfering with such a right, even in a case where the and decision of the questions brought before them, sepa party had expressly assented to the exercise of a summary rates them from the feelings and passions that agitate the proceeding. mass of the community. Public opinion expects (and I I have contended that, as the sweeping clause of the trust not vainly) that the men exalted to that high station, constitution gives to Congress the power to pass all laws when they put on the robes of justice, will lay aside the necessary and proper, to enable them to exercise the pow-uniforms of political warfare. To them are committed the ers given, the power can only be exercised by pass- scales of justice to be held, with high and steady hand, above ing a law, and that there can be no such proceeding as the the reach of every breath of the storms of party strife that present till a law authorizing it has been passed. may rage beneath them. To them is given the sword of justice, to guard the constitution, the tree of life to the people, from every violation.

Now, it was decided by the Supreme Court, in 3d DalJas, page 381, that as the constitution had declared that the appellate power of that court should be subject to such exceptions and regulations as Congress might provide, that, "unless Congress has provided a rule to regulate the proceedings of the Supreme Court as to its appellate jurisdiction, the court could not exercise it."

May I not also say here, that, until Congress shall pass a law regulating and declaring the power, neither House can exercise it?

That court has also decided in the case of Maryland and McCullough, 4th Wheaton, page 316, that the degree of necessity to give to Congress the power under the constitution, is a matter "not for judicial, but for legislative discretion."

Does it not follow from this that the Legislature must declare, by a legislative act, the necessity which authorizes, under the constitution, their power to act? There must, then, be a law; for this House can by itself do no legislative act, declare no legislative discretion.

I would also beg to refer to the debates in the Virginia convention of the 16th June, 1788. The exclusive legis lation of Congress over the ten miles square awakened some alarm among the wise and patriotic men who were then discussing the constitution. Mr. Madison defended this provision, on the ground of its being necessary that Congress might protect itself from insult and interruption. Now, from this defence and this argument, two things may be plainly inferred.

1st. That neither he nor his opponents imagined that the Houses of Congress had the vast and unbounded power of the English House of Commons, now contended for; for if they had, no legislation over the ten miles square could have been necessary for their protection.

2lly. That it was by legislation, and legislation here over the ten miles square, that they were to be protected. I have referred to the law of Congress of the last session, defining and punishing contempts in the courts of the United States, for the purpose of showing that such of fences are capable of definition, and that the Congress and the people of the United States have thought it neither necessary nor proper that the courts should exercise such a power over the rights of the citizen, except for acts of direct interruption committed in their presence.

How differently is this House constituted! and for what different purposes! Here must necessarily meet the leaders of all conflicting principles and parties. This must be the arena on which all the popular contests incident to our free institutions are to be fought out. Every temptation to the abuse of power that can be imagined will be found here.

Am I asked how danger can come from such a power, in such a place? I answer, just as we might expect it to come from the nature of power, and from the nature of man; just as the history of the world shows us it ever has come. It will, at first, be claimed and used by honorable and patriotic men, such as now fill this Hall, who deem that there can be no danger of abuse from themselves, and the men with whom they act. It will be used with moderation and forbearance, so as to excite no alarm. It will make its slow but steady progress, each step inviting and justifying another--all prompted by pure love to the people. This will ever be, as it has ever been, the pretext. From the days of Cæsar to the present time, all power has been considered by those who nevertheless have assumed it, as a most troublesome and dangerous thing, to be taken with great reluctance. The crown must be thrice offered, and thrice refused, and only accepted at last for the sake of the people, to be blessed under its rule.

To what a size power may imperceptibly grow, as it thus progresses, may be easily imagined. And those who will not imagine it, may trace its progress, and see it, in its past and present enormity, in the English Parliament.

"Parua metu primum, nox sese attoltis in auras." "Egrediturque solo caput inter unbila condit." Who can give assurance that such may not be its progress here?--that luxury may not do its corrupting work among us, and prosperity weaken the strength, virtue, and vigilance of our people? And when a power like this is settled upon a broad base, and can manage, like the law of Parliament, to hide its head in the clouds, shall we not hold all our rights at its mercy? Will not its possession taint even the good? And if bad men shall ever gain the ascendency in our councils, if a corrupt Executive shall ever command a corrupt majority here, (and the statesman must look beyond the present times of security, It may be objected to this that a more unlimited power and guard against such dangers,) may not such a power is necessary for the protection of Congress; and that such be wielded to any purpose of oppression? May not the a power may be more safely trusted to a body immedi- press and the voice of the patriot be silenced in imprisonately responsible to the people, whose members return ment, and the people know nothing of their danger, till regularly to their constituents. Neither of these positions usurpation proclaims its triumph, and adds to the uncan be sustained. Let the Supreme Court of the United heeded catalogue of its successes another memorable case States and the House of Representatives be compared, in to prove that a free constitution can be nowhere safely respect to their duties and powers under the constitution, written but in the hearts of a virtuous and vigilant people, and if that which has the highest authority is the most im- who shall watch and restrain the first step of power or portant to be effectually protected, it is that court; and if privilege that passes the limits assigned to it? that which has in itself the least means of self-protection, most requires such a power, it is also most evidently that court.

So also as to the danger of its abuse.

Where more safely (if safely any where) could this high and indefinite power of privilege be trusted, than in that supreme tribunal? What scheme or object of policy can the judges of that court have the means, even if they should have the wish, to accomplish?

Sir, we are, like all the people who have ever lived, frail and imperfect beings, prone to evil. We may have men among us who may be blinded by passion or seduced by ambition; and what weapons, in all the armory of mischief, can be more fitted for the worst of their purposes, than undefined and unquestioned power, a power of the very nature now asserted, and if now used, to be laid up in store for them, a power to try any man for any thing, in any way? For that they may do, if they may do what

H. OF R.]

Question of Privilege.

ever they may think "necessary and proper," without interference, and with no other restraint than their own discretion.

When I think what the power now in controversy is, and what, from its nature, it may become, it seems to be idle to discuss the question of where it may be most safely lodged. It seems to be disputing against an axiom in politics, to hold that it can be lodged any where. Surely the men who framed this constitution would have thrown their unfinished work with indignation from their hands, if they could have foreseen that a day like this was so soon to come, when here, in this Hall, it should be gravely debated whether power, undefined and unlimited but by the discretion of its holders, should be adjudged under the constitution to be lodged here, or there, or any where, in any human hands.

It may be said that I have magnified the power in question--that it is not claimed to the extent exercised in the House of Commons in England--not meant to be unlimited, nor exclusive of the authority of our courts.

If so, it is certainly much less to be dreaded, but equally unworthy of acceptance here.

[APRIL 26, 1832.

So, then, if the power is not exclusive here, it cannot answer the purpose intended-it cannot be either necessary or proper. And if it is exclusive, it rides over the constitution, gives the House of Representatives a supremacy denied to all the departments of Government-makes it a despot, and the people slaves. Again, it may be objected-

That the courts may not punish the breach of privilege, only the breach of the peace. To this I answer that they do. They consider every aggravating and mitigating circumstance, and punish accordingly; and if not, they may be made to do it, Congress having full power to legislate upon the subject.

On the whole, then, it must appear to be at least doubtful whether, either upon the law or the fact, there is a case here on which the House is authorized to act. But if there be, there is another question: that is, is there a case here in which the House, in its discretion, will think it necessary or proper to exercise the power? The jurisdiction assumed is discretionary. In a case of the most undoubted breach of privilege, the House is under no compulsion to exercise the power. They may

If the courts of the United States can question and re-dismiss the case and discharge the offender. strain it, and the President can pardon the offenders it This is done in England by the House of Commons, may sentence to punishment, then is it a power neither as in the passage I have referred to from Starkie, and necessary nor proper for this House--then is it a useless there stated to be the wisest and best course; so here, in and absurd power, tending not to protect and dignify, Jarvis's case--the clearest case of such an offence ever but to degrade the House. brought here.

Take it either way--let me briefly present each alter- The House, then, will look into the circumstances of native to the consideration of this honorable body. each case, and determine on prosecuting or dismissing, If the House has the power assumed, it is either an ex-according to the nature and cause of the offence, and the clusive power, with which no other department can in- provocation producing it. This was evidently done, as terfere, or it is not. appears by the report in the case of Jarvis.

If it is an exclusive power, the courts of the United States would have no jurisdiction, in any way, to question it. Nor could the President pardon a person thus sentenced to imprisonment.

But the courts of the United States question the power not only of this House, but of the whole Congress, and the President besides.

Then this House has a greater power under the constitution than both Houses and the President-and the other House has the same power.

Then each House has a greater power separately than together, which may be said to be absurd.

For both Houses and the President may pass a law punishing contempts, and the court may question it. Still more may they question an order of this House without a law.

Again: the constitution makes it the duty of the courts of the United States to try all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. A man is brought before the Supreme Court by habeas corpus in confinement under an order of this House. This is a case arising under the constitution; the citizen claims his constitutional right, the House its constitutional privilege, and yet, if the power of this House be exclusive, the court can take no jurisdiction, but must learn to become as ignorant of the law of Parliament as the judges of England. Will any lawyer be found there, can any be now found here, to advocate such a doctrine?

What, then, are the circumstances of this assault? Was there any peculiar atrocity attending it, beyond the power of the ordinary tribunals of justice to redress, and requiring to be visited by the penal justice of the representatives of the nation?

It was so represented. When the House determined to proceed, they acted upon an affidavit, stating the complainant to have been waylaid--knocked down with a bludgeon--severely beaten and wounded, and confined to his bed; and the cause was stated to have been for words spoken in his place. This most exaggerated account, however, has been refuted by the proof.

It was represented as the waylaying of a member, and as the fierce attack of overwhelming strength upon defenceless weakness. It is proved to be no such case. There was no lying in wait-no evidence that the accused ever sought him, and positive proof that the meeting was unsought.

Here was no attack prompted by the strength of the assailant, or the weakness of the adversary-but an eneounter, sudden and unexpected--the result of irrepressible feelings, in the moment of excitement, under aggravated insults--the conflict of a disabled man against a strong and an armed adversary-to the hazardous issue of which he felt himself driven by a sense of wounded honor-without one single circumstance of inferiority on the part of his opponent, except that feeling which it is wisely ordered shall weaken the heart and hand of him who stands in the presence of a man he knows he has wronged, Sir, would be a case for nominal damages from any jury, if tried according to strict law.

And yet, if it is not so, if the power here is not exclusive, what will follow? It will neither be necessary nor proper, but useless and ridiculous, tending not to support, but to degrade the dignity of this House: for if the court And, tried here, according to the liberal discretion of may decide it at last, after a trial here, why not at first? this House, it is a case for no damages, in which the And it ca not add to the dignity of this House that they House will see who was the first and greatest wrong-doer, should try and commit offenders, who may be immediate-and dismiss the accused, ly discharged by the court, or pardoned by the President; for his power must also be denied. If the offence be against the United States, he can pardon; but if against the privileges of this House, he too must disclaim all right to comprehend any thing of such a case.

If we go back, as we ought to do, beyond the actual meeting, to consider the provocation, what was it?

The accused had been charged before this House and the nation with an infamous crime. The words of the complainant, as published in the Intelligencer, plainly im

APRIL 26, 1832.]

Question of Privilege.

pute it of themselves; and if their meaning was at all equivocal, the reference to the previous publications of the Telegraph on the same subject removes all doubt. This charge was made most wantonly. The subject in debate had no sort of connexion with the accused, or any transaction of his life. He was a private citizen, almost unknown to his accuser.

It was made without the slightest foundation. Yet the accuser represented it as a matter, not of suspicion or belief, but as within his knowledge--asserts that "the whole affair was known to him at the time it took place."

[H. OF R.

heard of this fraud, he considered himself a supporter of the administration, and was not prepared exactly then to make an attack upon them--it was the first act that shook his confidence in the integrity of the then administration." It is not possible that his impression of having been governed by such a reason can be correct. He knows of a fraud perpetrated, or attempted, by an officer of the Government, and because he is a supporter of the administration, he forbears to disclose it. That circumstance would have been the strongest motive to charge it--that the administration he was supporting might be cleansed from He has been called upon to state what he knew. He is such a stain, and rendered worthy of his confidence. It asked what evidence he had then, or has now, of the was no good reason, therefore, for his forbearance while truth of the charge. He has insisted on giving a long an- he was a supporter of the administration, and certainly no swer to this; and if all was struck from it which is no an- sort of reason for such forbearance after he ceased to beswer to the question, (which might have been done, if I come its supporter. On the contrary, if he was thus rehad chosen to object to it,) scarcely any thing would re-strained there, because not then exactly prepared to make main. The greatest part of it is avowedly an answer an attack, yet, afterwards, when he did become exactly which he says he would have given to another question, prepared, the restraint would have become an induceif it had been asked of him. He was reminded that was ment. not asked of him, but still persists in answering the question put to him, by showing how he would have answered another that was not put to him. And when we have it all, what does it amount to? What did he know? Why, he tells us that this was believed, and that was understood, and something else he was informed of, from all which he was led to believe something else. All that he can pretend to say he knew, was the advertisement to the public! He knows that fact, and knows also some eight or ten persons, who, he believes, know some other persons, who, he believes, know something that he believes would prove the fraud.

Some of these gentlemen happened to be present, and one of them, the honorable member from New York, he has acknowledged, had no knowledge upon the subject, except from the information of third persons. Another of them has been displayed here as a most important witness, who could throw great light upon the subject. It was singular that he should have selected from them all, General Green; because he had disclaimed in his speech all information from him, and further, because General Green, without being put to give evidence, commonly lets all the world know at least as much as he knows.

It might also be supposed that, when called upon by the accused, if he had really known any thing to his disadvantage, he would have stated it to somebody. If he had made it known, it might have led to such an explanation as might have satisfied him, and removed all his suspicions.

I may, I think, then conclude that when the charge was thus distinctly and positively made, the complainant had no sort of foundation for it. And thus he continued down to the very moment of his standing up here as a witness, and even afterwards. But, while under cross-examination, and just after the question is put to him, calling for his proofs, he finds--most fortunate man--upon his table, as if it had fallen from the clouds, a document that enables him at least to say he has evidence of the fraud. This is the deposition, as it was called, of Mr. Luther Blake. The question was, "what evidence have you now?" &c. Then, and after the question was read by the Clerk, and under discussion by the House, it appears, he had none. This affidavit is sent to him afterwards: he did not inform the House when or how he received it. If he had, it might have been thought not admissible under the question. He does not state, nor did the affidavit state, But there is no difficulty in proving, although it is a ne- where, or when, or how, it was taken, or who or where gative proposition, that the complainant did not know the deponent was. It has been, however, read, and, beany thing of the fraud he had professed to have know-ing read, I have agreed it may be considered as evidence; ledge of. If he had, (we may presume he would have done and the question now is, what is it worth? his duty,) he would have charged it upon the guilty parties. Or, if not, he certainly would be able to give some sufficient reason for such a dereliction of duty. He has been asked, as he knew of this fraud, why he did not officially charge it. He has given a number of reasons, as is generally the case where there is no good one. The first is perhaps the best. He says "he does not know that it is incumbent on him to make charges of all the frauds that he hears of."

Who is Mr. Blake? The witnesses have spoken of his habits, his general habits and state of mind before and after the time of his giving this affidavit. We are thus enabled to account for permitting himself to be made use of, in a way sufficient of itself to take away all weight from his evidence. He is, moreover, proved to have been a bitter enemy of the accused, and another enemy is the person by whose agency the affidavit has been taken, and in whose writing it appears.

This, then, it seems was only a fraud that he had heard He is further shown, by Dr. Davis, to have been inof. A very good reason, certainly, for not charging it--but formed of the substance of the publication of the Teleno reason at all for not charging a fraud that he knew of. graph against the accused; and the reply, denying the But he has further reasons. "There are other mem-truth of that publication, and justifying the accused from bers in the House whom he wishes to take the lead in the charge, is exhibited to him, and he acknowledges it such business--he is 'willing to lend his aid," &c. But to be correct. And he who thus admitted the denial of those other members might not, as he did, know of the fraud--they might only have heard of it.

And besides, he ought to have remembered that, if they did know it, they might be afraid to charge it. It seems that these are such fearful days of threat and assassination, that he does not wonder that gentlemen here shrink from the danger of such charges. But his bosom, he has assured us, he is always ready to bare to the dagger of the assassin. He therefore was the very man to " 'go ahead" and lead on the charge.

But he has still another reason. "At the time he first

the charge to be correct, is the witness to whose ex parte affidavit alone the complainant is driven to prove its truth. And where is Mr. Blake? He was here after these proceedings against the accused were commenced, after he was arrested. And he makes his affidavit one day, and goes off the next. He has important business in Alabama, of which nobody knows--and he leaves important business here, which all his acquaintances knew he was here attending to, and gives none of them more than an hour or two's notice of his departure--and, until he is gone and out of reach, nothing is said of the affidavit.

H. OF R.]

stances.

I will not trespass upon the House by saying another case within its reach, yet that, in the just discretion of thi word of a paper taken and produced under such circum-House, they would forbear to exercise it in a hard cas It discredits itself, the giver of it, the taker of against a wronged man, who has declared before the it, and the cause to sustain which it is produced. House, in his answer, that he did not mean to commit, an The complainant had better have continued without did not believe he was committing, any violation of priv any evidence, than to stand as he does now, without lege. Such is the cause that I am now about to leave to any other evidence to justify what he has said than this. the judgment of this honorable House; and I rejoice t The original provocation, then, was wanton and unjust; its repetition by the writing and publishing his speech alike unwarranted: and the contemptuous rejection of a fair proposition for explanation was adding to a wilful injury the grossest insult.

Let me now, in conclusion, present this provocation in another aspect.

The complainant has testified that he did not mean to impute a fraud to the accused.

If so, why did he never say so?

Why not say so to the accused, and put an end to all! cause of complaint?

know that nothing has been seen, during this investiga tion, in the conduct and character of my client, (wide and unlimited as has been the inquiry he has invited,) to throw a shade of prejudice upon his cause: nothing to warran either the original imputation or the present aspersions o the witness against him.

What, sir, are these aspersions? He is represented by the witness as "a man of ruined fortunes and blasted re putation;" an adventurer seeking to abuse the favor of the officers, and defraud his country.

All this gratuitous suspicion, drawn from circumstances indicating to every fair mind directly opposite concla He says he thought the accused was seeking a pretext sions. The man, thus represented, is one who, in the to attack him. Why, then, should he give him that pretext? ardor of youth and devotion of patriotism, heard the cal He consulted with his friends as to the reply proper for of his country in the day of her danger, and took his hum him to make. Why should he not tell them that he meant ble, but honorable stand in the lowest rank of her defend no imputation against the accused? How could they ad-ers. How he filled and adorned that station--how h vise him properly without this information? rose to distinction among the honored and the brave, need not tell. He drew upon him the approving eye o one who is ever prompt to see and proud to exalt merit however humble.

Why did he not tell Mr. Jonsson? He thought Mr. JOHNSON ought not to have conversed with him on this subject, but with his friend, Mr. CREIGHTON. But he does not appear to have told Mr. CREIGHTON.

"a ma

And this, honorable alike to both, is a reproach and It seems, too, that he did tell Mr. JoHNSON that the cause of suspicion. He leaves the service of his rescued words he had used did not necessarily impute a fraud. country, poor--and this, too, is a reproach. He is How could he help telling him, at the same time, that he of ruined fortunes," because he has brought out of tha had not intended to impute a fraud? He has been asked war, in whose dangers and disasters he had shared, no his reason for not doing so, and has been obliged to another spoils than the scars of honest wounds, and the swer, great as his reasoning faculties have appeared, sword which his valor had won. that he does not know what reason he had" for not doing so.

There was, then, nothing necessary, to put an end to all displeasure or complaint, to place himself on such terms with the accused as every man must wish to be with another, whose feelings he had unintentionally wounded, but for the complainant to have stated what he admits was the truth.

What, sir, must be the delusion of mind, the blindnes of passion, that can seize upon such circumstances a grounds of accusation? Not thus has he been seen and judged by the people in the midst of whom he has moved They have awarded to him their warmest thanks and their highest honors.

Sir, the man who inherits an honorable name, or who gains it with ease or by accident, prizes it as a rich posses sion; but the man who has won it as the accused has, and won it only as he has, will cherish it as his only earthly treasure.

Instead of this, he refuses--refuses insultingly-makes a reply that he knows will provoke the accused to assail him, and prepares to meet the assault he has thus invited, with two cocked pistols and a dirk, and a friend," who, This honorable House will therefore pardon me if I have was not to interfere unless his own judgment should dic-been unnecessarily solicitous to guard from the breath o tate it." its censure a name that has been thus earned, and is thus valued.

No doubt he had surveyed the probable progress of the war, and planned his operations for the campaign. The accused would be advancing with his stick, and his ready pistols could strike a quicker and a deadlier blow.

I feel most thankful for the kind indulgence of this ho norable body towards myself, and confidently trust that shall have the gratification of owing still warmer thanks for the honorable exculpation of my client.

If such had been the result, it might have been matter for inquiry, whether the plea of self-defence could avail [Mr. KEY spoke about two hours, when he yielded to him who wantonly provokes an attack, and arms himself a motion for adjournment, and concluded his argument on with secret and mortal weapons to meet it. To be a jus-a subsequent day; but the whole of it is given above contification, self-defence must be assumed, bona fide. If nectedly.]

made a pretext, as there is too much reason to consider it here, I do not say what would be the offence in the eye of the law. I need not say what it would be in the eye of Heaven.

Whatever, then, the accused may have done, he had great, and accumulated, and unmerited provocation. He has suffered more than he has inflicted--is "more sinned against than sinning."

I have now endeavored to show, in the first place, that the House has not the power it has assumed in the proceedings against the accused; and, secondly, that if it has such a power, the facts proved in this case show no violation of privilege.

And, lastly, I have endeavored to show that if this House has the power assumed, and the facts bring the

FRIDAY, APRIL 27.

The Senate's amendments to the
APPORTIONMENT BILL

being received,

Mr. POLK moved to refer them to a select committee.
Mr. EVERETT opposed the motion.

Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts, observed that the appor tionment bill, in the House, had been referred to a select committee, before it came into the Committee of the Whole. It had then been debated for more than six weeks The House knew what proceedings had taken place in the Senate on the subject; they had been published to all the world; and it did not need any new report to apprise

it of the views of a committee. The subject had been exhausted in both Houses; and as he could conceive of no utility that could possibly grow out of the postponement, he hoped the motion would not prevail.

Mr. POLK said he had moved the reference of the amendment to a select committee, that the statements and calculations connected with the subject might be placed on the table of every member, that he might examine the great constitutional question involved for himself. That question had not yet been raised here, and in respect to that House it might be considered as a new question, although forty years ago it had been considered as a settled question. The great importance of the principle required that it be fully and deliberately examined. A report from a committee would not interfere with each member's presenting his own opinion in the fullest manner. No delay would result; it would not take more than one or two days for the committee to be ready; and he frankly avowed his own conviction that a report from a committee would be necessary, as a report had been made in the Senate, and was on its archives. The views of one of the Houses would thus be handed down for the next ten years; should there not also be a counter report on record, that the views on both sides might equally appear? He thought this due to the House. The two Houses were at issue; the Senate had rejected the principle of the bill as sent to them, and had grafted an entirely new principle It was therefore important there should be the -upon it. report of a committee upon it.

Mr. MITCHELL, of South Carolinia, said that he desired, for his own personal benefit, to have the report of a committee. It was an intricate subject at best, and he should vote for the commitment on the ground of his perSonal necessities.

Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts, observed that the gentleman addressed the House as if there were some very intricate calculations involved in this matter, instead of its being, what it was in truth, a very simple affair. The Senate's amendment gave to the major fractions in each State an additional member. Any man of common sense might, in five minutes, make all the calculations that were requisite. There could be no need to refer it to a select committee unless the House wished to have an argument from such committee. This he could not conceive neces

sary.

Mr. CRAIG thought there must be something intricate about it, for while one set of gentlemen avowed that they would not vote for the bill as it went from the House because it was unconstitutional, another set averred that they could not vote for the amendment of the Senate for the

same reason.

Mr. DAVIS explained. He had not said that the amendment did not contain an important constitutional question.

[H. of R.

fairly heard, and he had no doubt they would be without the reference proposed.

Mr. HOFFMAN said he felt great solicitude that the House should come to a conclusion on the subject of apportionment; he did not desire the subject delayed. But it must be obvious they would obtain that object more readily by having the report of a committee, than by detaining the bill, and discussing it historically in the House. Much of the argument on the constitutional question must depend on historical details in reference to what had been done on former occasions. A committee would give these details in a condensed form, and save much time. As it was a question of political power, calculated to agitate the country, and the Senate had sent them a new bill, it ought to be fully considered and reported on. The committee, he was sure, would not seize on the occasion to produce delay. And besides, the period when delay was most injurious, had unfortunately been suffered to pass by. But could not the House say to the committee, you must report to-day or to-morrow? The fear of delay was merely illusory. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. EVERETT] supposed there could be no difficulty about the calculations. But Mr. H. asked whether the doctrine of fractions had been carried to perfection. Were gentlemen agreed as to what fractions should give a representative? On what principle in respect to fractions was the House going to act? Could not a committee recommend an amendment to the amendment of the Senate? And would that involve no calculation? concluded that, with a view to speedy and enlightened action of the House on the subject, he would move that the amendments should be sent to a select committee.

He

Mr. SPEIGHT inquired whether the report from the Senate was not printed and laid on the tables. He thought it would be most proper to refer the amendments to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and he made that motion. It must be a waste of time to refer it to a select committee, as it would have to go to a Committee of the Whole afterwards.

Mr. POLK replied. If the subject should be referred to a select committee, there would be no need to send it to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. It was his purpose to have the subject speedily examined. The committee could report in two or three days. A great and a new question, affecting the political power of every State in the Union, was involved; and he had not expected, when he made his motion, that a single voice would be raised in opposition to it. The committee would give the historical details of what had been done since the year 1792. He had himself examined into them, in some degree. But, as things stood, the whole of the Senate's argument was before them, and nothing on the other side. The House should have all the documents before them, from which they would get the views of Washington's Mr. CRAIG said it was no matter whether the difficulty cabinet on this great question. He understood a gentlewas mathematical or metaphysical; there was a wide di-man was in town who had the private papers of Washingversity of opinion about it, and the House needed all the ton in his possession, which would show that he had relights it could obtain. quired and received the opinions of Hamilton, Jefferson, Mr. EVERETT was opposed to the reference, on ac- Randolph, and Knox upon it. Those opinions might be count of the delay it would occasion, and on that account useful in shedding additional light upon the whole subject. alone. There would be no need of a report for the pur-That, instead of being delayed, the proceedings of the pose of argument; it would be no doubt fully argued in the House would be facilitated. Even should the House agree House: they would have all the argument before them. to the general principle of admitting fractions to be repreThere were no calculations about it which could possibly sented, they might choose a different fraction from that involve any difference of opinion; none could differ on which the Senate had fixed upon. It was an important the question whether two and two made four. He wanted question, and one which had not yet been discussed. the House to take up the subject on the carliest possible moment; and he knew not how soon it might have an opportunity to do so. As he understood the trial was not to proceed to-day, owing to the indisposition of the counsel, if the bill was in proper state to be acted on, they could take it up to-day. Let the House keep the bill in its own hands. Mr. E. was desirous that both sides should be

Mr. CLAY expressed his hope that the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. SPEIGHT] would withdraw his motion. It was more important that the bill should pass this session, than in what form it should pass. He hoped the House would look at its former experience, when this subject was in Committee of the Whole. The debate would be endless, as it had seemed likely to be on a former oc