should ask the House to consider that motion; but, before doing so, he wished to suggest that he designed to modify his proposition, by merely asking the House to permit that gentleman to come within the hall during the sittings of the House in the character of a spectator; that, he trusted, would be acceptable to the whole House; and he had done it with reference to former precedents, particularly that of the State of Tennessee. Mr. B. then sent his modified proposition to the Chair, to be read from the Clerk's table for the information of the House, and was as follows:

Resolved, That Isaac E. Crary, who claims to have been duly elected a member of this House, be admitted as a spectator within the hall during the sittings of this House.

Objection being made,

Mr. BEARDSLEY moved to suspend the rules of the House to enable him to make the motion, and asked for the yeas and nays; which were ordered, and which were as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. John Q. Adams, Ashley, Bailey, Barton, Bean, Beardsley, Bockee, Boon, Borden, Bovee, Boyd, Briggs, Brown, Buchanan, Cambreleng, Campbell, Chapman, Chapin, Childs, Claiborne, Clark, Cleveland, Connor, Corwin, Craig, Cramer, Crane, Cushing, Cushman, Darlington, Deberry, Dickerson, Doubleday, Dromgoole, Efner, Everett, Fairfield, Farlin, P. C. Fuller, Galbraith, J. Garland, R. Garland, Gillet, Glascock, Granger, Grennell, Haley, J. Hall, Hamer, Hard, S. S. Harrison, A. G. Harrison, Haynes, Hazeltine, Henderson, Hiester, Hoar, Howard, Howell, Hubley, Hunt, Huntington, Ingham, W. Jackson, J. Jackson, Janes, J. Johnson, R. M. Johnson, Cave Johnson, H. Johnson, J. W. Jones, Judson, Kennon, Kilgore, Lane, Lansing, Laporte, Lawler, Lawrence, Lay, T. Lee, Leonard, Lincoln, Loyall, Lyon, A. Mann, J. K. Mann, Martin, W. Mason, M. Mason, S. Mason, Maury, McKay, McKennan, McKeon, McKim, Miller, Montgomery, Moore, Morris, Muhlenberg, Owens, Page, Parker, Parks, Patterson, Franklin Pierce, Dutee J. Pearce, Phelps, Phillips, Potts, Reed, Joseph Reynolds, Roane, Rogers, Schenck, Seymour, Slade, Sloane, Smith, Sprague, Storer, Taliaferro, Thomas, J. Thomson, Toucey, Turner, Turrill, Vanderpoel, Wagener, Wardwell, Weeks, Whittlesey-133.

NAYS-Messrs. C. Allan, Beale, Bond, Bunch, J. Calhoon, W. B. Calhoun, Carr, Carter, Casey, J. Chambers, Coles, Davis, Denny, Evans, Forester, French, Graham, Graves, Grayson, Griffin, Hammond, Hannegan, Hopkins, Huntsman, Jarvis, Kinnard, L. Lea, Lucas, May, McCarty, McLene, Mercer, Morgan, J. A. Pearce, Pettigrew, Pickens, Pinckney, John Reynolds, Russell, W. B. Shepard, A. H. Shepperd, Shields, Standefer, W. Thompson, Underwood, L. Williams, S. Williams-47.

So the House determined to suspend the rules. Mr. BEARDSLEY then moved the foregoing resolu tion; which was agreed to.

BANKS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. The House resumed the consideration of the petitions presented yesterday by Mr. W. B. SHEPARD, from sundry banks in the District of Columbia, praying an extension of their charters.

A motion having been made to refer the petitions to the Committee on the District of Columbia,

Mr. THOMAS, of Maryland, moved to send them to a select committee, with instructions. Mr. T. modified his proposition as follows:

Resolved, That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the condition of the currency of the District of Columbia, to whom shall be referred all other memorials which may be presented to the present Congress,

[DEC. 30, 1835.

praying for an extension of the charters of the existing banks in said District of Columbia, or for the establishment of any other bank or banks in their stead, and to examine into the condition of the currency of said District, to inspect the books and to examine into the proceedings of said banks, to ascertain whether their charters have been violated or not, and whether any abuses or malpractices have existed in their management, to send for persons and papers, to examine witnesses on oath, and to appoint a clerk to record their proceedings.

Mr. SHEPARD said that the present question was more a question of propriety and fitness than any thing else. It was for the House of Representatives to say whether they would take this matter from a standing committee, and refer it to a select committee. He said the House could judge of the propriety of doing that as well without argument as with it. It was not for him to say whether the Committee on the District could perform the duty as well as a select committee. To show the entire uselessness of the motion of the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. THOMAS,] he held in his hand a letter from the president of one of the banks, requesting that the Committee on the District would appoint some of their members to investigate fully the affairs of the banks. It seemed to him that the gentleman could have obtained his object by moving instructions to the Committee on the District. If this was done, he would pledge himself to the House that any queries which the gentlemen would put to him should be put to the banks of the District, and answered; and then it would be for that gentleman to say whether they were answered properly or not. It was a question of propriety for this House to say whether it would take from the Committee on the District of Columbia that business which legiti mately belonged to it, and send it to another committee. If the House has no confidence in the Committee on the District, let it say so. He, however, as a member of that committee, was willing to examine the banks of the District as scrupulously as he could.

Mr. THOMAS said that justice to himself made it proper to remind the House of an occurrence in the last Congress connected with this question. There were four banks in the District that stopped specie payments in 1834, two of which are now asking a recharter. In 1835, these banks memorialized this body for the passage of a law to recharter them. It was but justice to the city that we should act understandingly on this matter; that an inquiry should be instituted to ascertain the causes of these failures. But he said that, without ob. jection from him, the memorials of the last session were referred to the Committee on the District; the subject was taken up by that committee, but no investigation was had. He said he then, under a deep sense of duty to his constituents, gave a promise that if this subject was put off to another session of Congress, he would make it his business to examine into the state of these banks. Now, if you send this matter to the Committee on the District, you send it to a committee which has prejudged the question. Under these circumstances, he felt it to be his duty to ask of the House a select com. mittee. He said if it was proper for the House to refer matter in relation to the Territories to a select committee, it was proper, he thought, to refer this matter to a select committee. He said the Chief Magistrate had called the attention of Congress to the question of currency, and he therefore conceived it a very important one, and asked of the House a committee, whose especial duty it should be to make a thorough investigation of the mat

ter.

Mr. BOULDIN said, as a member of the Committee on the District, he did not wish to take upon himself very arduous duties; but he was as willing to take up

and go through with the investigation, as the gentleman. He said the committees were appointed by the Speaker, and he could not see the difference between them. The greatest objection is, that the chairman of the Committee on the District has had this matter before him at the last session. This he thought was a favorable circumstance, because that gentleman must have more knowledge of the business than he otherwise could have. said that he was ready to go into an investigation without any prepossessions, and was willing to investigate the matter as thoroughly as the gentleman from Maryland or any other gentleman.

He

Mr. VANDERPOEL said that he, as a member of the District Committee, cherished no pride of jurisdiction, and was therefore willing, for his part, to dispense with the pleasure and honor of making an investigation into the past doings of the banks in the District, which was contemplated by the resolution of the honorable gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. THOMAS.] He did not believe that the proposition of that honorable gentleman was founded in a distrust of the capacity of the District Committee to make the necessary examination, nor upon any apprehension that they felt indisposed to do so. The duties of the District Committee were very onerous, and though willing, as a member of that committee, to perform, to the utmost of his humble ability, every duty that might be imposed upon him, yet, as he could, as he thought, be otherwise more profitably employed in his public capacity, he would for his part rather be excused from the labor of inquiring into the details of the past operations of the District banks. He thought that a select committee could be raised, every way competent to execute this duty; and that the Committee on the District, pressing, important, and multifarious as were the calls upon its attention, could spend its time in the execution of duties in a manner better calculated to subserve the public interest, than would be the duty or task of wading for days and weeks, if not for months, through the books and legers of the banks within the District.

It would be recollected that some of those banks suspended payment and closed their doors, two years ago. Yes, when the tocsin of alarm and distress and panic was sounded from one extreme of the country to the other, it had been insinuated by some that these banks had lent their still small voices to aid that momentous occasion. He (Mr. V.) would not undertake to state, or even insinuate this. The banks may have had most justifiable reasons for suspending specie payments; but, after what had occurred, it was most emphatically proper that a strict scrutiny should be made into the past doings of these institutions, before we gave them any renewed pledge of our confidence. Should the result prove that the banks in this District should have been improvidently rechartered, the constituents of the gentleman from Maryland, from their proximity to these banks, and from their constant business intercourse with the region where they would operate, would be more exposed to loss than the constituents of those gentlemen who resided at a greater distance; and since the gentleman from Maryland, from a sense of duty to his constituents, seems to be anxious to look into the past doings of the banks within this district, he (Mr. V.) thought it but just and reasonable that he should be gratified.

Mr. V. had stated that the District Committee would have a great deal to do. Yes. He was justified in say. ing so, when he stated that the District was reeling and staggering under a debt, to the subjects of a foreign potentate, of nearly two millions of dollars! And he confidently asserted that that committee would be obliged to put in requisition all its industry, and all its inventive powers, to devise ways and means to save this great nation the degradation of having their Capitol sold to the countrymen of his forefathers. They were, to be sure,

[H. OF R.

the countrymen of his (Mr. V's) ancestors; but still his American feeling was very much disturbed at the idea of being sold out to foreigners. In further proof of the assertion, that the duties of the District Committee were heavy enough to engross all their time and attention, he would state that, a few years ago, a special committee was appointed to revise the laws of the District. They had sat during the recess of Congress, and have reported a code of laws which filled a pretty large volume, and which was not yet acted upon by the House. A few days ago a special committee was raised in relation to that part of the President's message, which relates to the bequest of an English gentleman, made to this Dis. trict. For these reasons, he would vote to refer this matter to a select committee.

Mr. MCKENNAN said he wished to make a few remarks, for the purpose of correcting a mistake into which the gentleman from Maryland had fallen, and into which the gentleman from New York appeared willing to fall also, respecting the course pursued by the Com. mittee on the District of Columbia at the last session of Congress. Mr. McK. had the honor of being a member of that committee, and he had in charge the bills reported by that committee for rechartering certain banks in the District. The gentleman from New York appeared to yield to the charge that that committee had acted precipitately on the subject. To this Mr. McK. did not assent. The charge was not properly founded; there was no precipitancy; and the bill itself would satisfy the House that there was no intention on the part of the committee to recharter these banks without the most searching inquiry into their situation and their conduct. It would be recollected that the charters of the Bank of Washington, the Bank of the Metropolis, the Patriotic Bank, and the Farmers and Mechanics' Bank of Georgetown, expired in March, 1836; and there being no time during the last session to give this subject a full investigation, the committee had reported a bill to recharter those banks for one year only, for the convenience of those cities, and to afford an opportunity to the present Congress to make the most searching investigation. That was all that was done by the Committee on the District, and he begged permission of the House to have that bill read by the Clerk, in order that this matter might be set right. [The bill in question was then read from the Clerk's table.]

As to whether this subject should go to the Committee on the District of Columbia or to a select committee, if the members of the former were willing to yield, Mr. McK. had no objection. He believed it, however, a legitimate subject of examination for the former committee; and unless the members of that committee, like the gentleman from New York, yielded, he should feel himself bound to vote that the subject should have that reference, and none other.

Mr. W. B. SHEPARD begged the indulgence of the House to make a few remarks in reply. The gentleman from Maryland said that Mr. S. had prejudged this ques tion. Now, he was at a loss to know how he had prejudged this question. As a member of the Committee on the District of Columbia, during the last session, he could not have prejudged the question, because nobody asked them to make these investigations. How, then, could he prejudge the question, when he had neither made, nor been asked to make, any investigation? Why did not the gentleman himself, as vigilant as he seemed to be, submit instructions to that committee then? Mr. S. really thought that the gentleman was laboring under a serious mistake in making that charge upon him. Certainly, Mr. S. did not pretend to the skill in banking the gentleman himself avowedly did; for the gentleman had had opportunities which had fallen to the lot of few members on that floor. Mr. S. remembered very well

the gentleman was a member of two committees on the subject of banking, and then saw and examined the "great monster" himself; and he also remembered that one of those committees reported to that House a very voluminous document; and he had no sort of doubt that, if the members of the House had thought proper to read that very voluminous document, they would have been very much enlightened on the subject of banking. He should be sorry to obscure the slightest ray the gentleman shed upon the subject.

Mr. S. said, for himself, he had no interest in the question, nor did he care one farthing about it in any point of view; but so long as he was a member of the Committee on the District of Columbia, he would assert upon that floor what he believed to be the rights and privileges of that District, and the rights and privileges of the Committee on that District. It was for the House to say whether that committee was as fit, had as much time, as much knowledge, and as much interest in the welfare and prosperity of the District, as the gentleman from Maryland. Mr. S. could not pretend to as much interest, perhaps, as the gentleman from Maryland, in one point of view. The gentleman tells us that he had a peculiar interest in the question, because the people of his district came down to the District of Columbia to trade, and the money of the District circulated among them. Why, the people of the gentleman's district, when they came down there, sometimes staid at the taverns, and, for the same reason, the House ought to raise a select committee, and put the dram shops under its charge; for it was as much a matter of interest to them. Why not put every matter that touched the gentleman's district under his special charge? However, Mr. S. would only remark that it was a mere matter of fitness and propriety, of which the House was the judge, and which needed no argument from him.

Mr. LANE was a member of the Committee on the District of Columbia, and he believed no person would charge him with any particular partiality for these banks, or any other banks in the United States. He must, however, object to the reasons assigned by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. TпoмAS] for taking the subject from the committee to which it legitimately belonged, and sending it to a select committee. gentleman might disguise his sentiments as he pleased, but it was evident that he had not only reflected, but had made a direct imputation upon the District Committee.

The

The gentleman had charged the committee with having prejudged the question. He was mistaken. There were five new members upon this committee, and he could assure him that, so far as he was concerned, he was in favor of a speedy and critical investigation into the affairs of these institutions. It had been contended that the Commitiee on the District was not the legitimate one, because the subject was one of general concern. These banks were local, and the people of the District were more interested in them than those who resided at a distance.

But the gentleman had asked, if this subject was sent to the District Committee, when would the investigation take place, and when would it close? He would answer, as soon and as speedily as the untiring industry of the committee would permit. Could more be expected of a select committee? The gentleman from Maryland was a member of four important committees, while the members of the Committee on the District were on no other committee. The gentleman must therefore have four times the ability and four times the industry of himself and associates, if he could perform this duty more promptly.

It had further been charged, that the committee, although it had been in existence for several weeks, had

[DEC. 30, 1835.

not taken up this subject. Mr. L. remarked, that it had not been referred to them, exeept informally; that the committee had met but twice; and when it should be ascertained that they had neglected their duty, it would be time enough to charge them with a direct omission to do so.

The gentleman had referred to the opportunities which he had to investigate banking institutions, and had urged an objection to the District Committee, because some of its members resided at a distance. If this argument was good, the gentleman might draw under his immediate charge almost every other question which should be presented for consideration.

Reference had been made to the fact that the Michigan question had the other day been sent to the Judicial Committee, instead of the Committee on the Territories. The reason of this was obvious. Legal questions were involved, and that committee was composed of able lawyers, who were more competent to investigate it. The gentleman from Maryland was a member of the Judiciary Committee. Did the gentleman draw an inference from the case, that because his honorable self, and those who might be associated with him upon the select committee, were more competent, that therefore his motion ought to prevail? For one, if the subject should be referred to the Committee on the District, he should be disposed to spare neither time nor labor to discharge his duty with fidelity.

Mr. L. alluded to the remarks which had been made in reference to the course and the solvency of the banks in the District. He was opposed to prejudging the institutions, and in favor of the strictest scrutiny into their operations. If they had acted improperly, let it be ascertained before they were condemned. He, for one, would not attempt to screen them, nor to sanction any abuse which might be fixed upon them.

Mr. BOULDIN again addressed the House, in reply to the last remarks of the gentleman from Maryland. In conclusion, he moved to amend the motion of the gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. W. B. SHEPARD,] by adding the following instructions to the Committee on the District of Columbia, to wit:

To examine into the condition of the currency of the said District; to inspect the books, and to examine into the proceedings of said banks; to ascertain whether their charters have been violated or not, and whether any abuses or malpractices have existed in their management; to send for persons and papers, to examine witnesses on oath, and to appoint a clerk to record their proceedings.

Mr. MERCER said that it was the duty of the Speaker of the House to appoint the committees, and to distribute the business of the House among the members as equally as possible; and, for that reason, he rose to call the attention of the House to this fact, that if the business was taken from one committee and transferred to another, the labors of the House would be unequally divided; and if you continued to pursue that course you would take from the District Committee all its duties. It was in vain for the gentleman from Virginia to say that he had no feeling in this matter. He had supposed the whole country felt an interest in it. The people in his district felt an interest in this question, and he would say that he felt the fullest confidence in the Committee on the District, and would be pleased to have the matter referred to that committee. He said that the failure of certain banks in the District was an unfortunate occurrence, and ought not to be reflected upon by the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. MANN said he had but a word to say on the subject. It should be remembered that the Committee on the District had all the legislation of this body, in relation to the District, in their own hands; and certainly that committee had as much business as they could

DEC. 30, 1835.]

tion.

attend to, independently of the matter under consideraIt therefore seemed to him to be proper that this proposition should be sent to a special committee. It was highly important that an investigation should be made, and thoroughly made. It was important to the people of the District that this investigation should be made, and he therefore hoped that it would be sent to a select committee, and let it be the special duty of that committee to investigate this matter.

Mr. LANE said he would inform the gentleman from New York, [Mr. MANN,] and the House, that the committee, so far from having more business than they were able to perform, had met again and again without having any business before them, and they would be obliged to gentlemen if they would give them something to occupy them. The Committee on the District has as much zeal, and as much disposition to investigate into the affairs of the banks, as the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. THOMAS] had, but that gentleman seemed to want the whole management of the currency of the District himself. Perhaps he is afraid the currency of the District would overwhelm and supersede that of Maryland.

Mr. THOMAS said that gentlemen misunderstood him. He did not wish to reflect upon any committee, or any member of the House. He said his constituents were more interested in this matter than those of many gentlemen; therefore, they wished it investigated. They wished to have a sound currency in a District with which they were so closely connected.

Mr. LANE read the following rule:

RULE 62. It shall be the duty of the Committee for the District of Columbia to take into consideration all such petitions, matters, or things, touching the said Dis. trict, as shall be presented, or shall come in question, and be referred to them by the House; and to report their opinion thereon, together with such propositions relative thereto as to them shall seem expedient.

Mr. BEARDSLEY said he was very happy indeed to perceive, and he could not forego the opportunity of congratulating the House and the country upon it, that there appeared now to be a universal and concurrent sentiment on the propriety of making the examination contemplated by one or the other committee of the House. As those banks came there to ask favors at the hands of that House, and as the character of the House, and the interest of the country at large, were deeply em. barked in the applications made by these banks, it was only fit and proper towards the House itself, and towards the country at large, that they should know, and that the country should know, the condition and circumstances and past conduct of these petitioners. Every body there seemed now to agree to the correctness of that proposi tion. He recollected the time when another institution, when another bank, came there for a similar purpose, to seek for an extention of its charter; and when one class of personages in that House thought proper to propose that an investigation should be had into the circumstances and condition of that institution; then he well recollected that the unanimity of sentiment, now prevailing in the minds of members of that House, if they might infer that sentiment from what had passed in the present debate, was all discord. Then the battle was continued upon the policy, and propriety, and justice, of making a similar examination. It was ultimately carried that investigation should be had; and the results of that, and a subsequent investigation, so far as there was any subsequent investigation, were before the country. Now, however, all doubts and difficulties upon the propriety of examination are dissipated, and it was admitted on all sides that there should be a thorough investigation into the condition and circumstances of all these institutions, before the House should act on an application for the renewal of their charters.

[H. OF R

The inquiry now was, by what organ the House should make the proposed examination. By many gentlemen it was supposed that this matter was one of especial reference to the Committee on the District of Columbia, and the rule of the House had been read for the purpose of showing that that would ordinarily be the course. But the 62d rule, as it appeared to him, even if construed in the strictest manner, or in the most liberal manner, could not not be supposed to embrace subjects of this character. The rule said it should be the duty of that commit. tee "to take into consideration all petitions, matters, or things, touching the said District," &c. This referred to matters and things that per se related wholly to the District, and to nothing out of it, and were within the range of its ordinary affairs. But was this petition from the District, or relating to the District as a District? In no sense whatever. It was a petition, it was true, for the recharter of certain banks within the District, but in no sense concerned the rights of the citizens at large; for the citizens of the District and adjacent country, and the whole community, were equally interested in the subject. It was not a petition of the District, within the words or the spirit of the rule; subjects of daily occurrence which sprung up, touching matters in which the District alone was concerned, were properly referrible to this committee, within the spirit and words of the rule. This, he repeated, was not a matter affecting the District, in any sense whatever, for it affected the citizens there in common with those of the country adjacent, and was not referrible, necessarily referrible, to its committee.

But even if it was within the terms of the rule, it would not be within its fair spirit or intent; for the rule was intended only for ordinary cases of daily or annual occur. rence, not for extraordinary occurrences, such as the location of a bank, or the renewal of a bank charter already located, within the limits of the District.

Mr. B. would make another suggestion. Many gentlemen thought it was inexpedient to establish in this place a large bank, wielding millions and millions of capital, with power to diffuse its branches throughout the Union, with or without the concurrence of the States in which they might be located. Let them suppose a petition to come there with that object, would it be referrible to the Committee on the District? Would it not with more propriety be a fit subject for the Com. mittee of Ways and Means? Yet it would be located in the District; and, upon the idea that the Committee on the District of Columbia was to grasp every thing within that location, such an application must of consequence go to that committee. Would not such an application, within the fair spirit of the rule, and pursuant to the course heretofore pursued, go to the Committee of Ways and Means, or perhaps to a select committee? Why, if the Committee on the District of Columbia were to take charge of every thing located within the District, the House would have to abolish the Committee on Pub. lic Buildings. It would seem to him, therefore, that this subject did not belong to the former committee, and that it should be sent to some other standing committee of the House, or to a select committee.

Mr. B. did not design to cast the slightest reflection upon the Committee on the District. He had no doubt that if the duty devolved upon them it would be most promptly, ably, and impartially executed, yet the duties they had already to perform were such as to take up much of the time that should be devoted to an investiga tion of this subject. Mr. B. then referred to precedents on similar subjects, and the committees appointed by the House on the Bank of the United States in 1819, and the session 1832-'3; and, after some further remarks, concluded by stating that he should vote in favor of Mr. THOMAS's motion, in which he trusted he should be sustained by the House.

Mr. EVERETT rose to correct the gentleman from New York in a matter of fact. The gentleman congratulated the House at discovering so great a unanimity in the House on the subject of investigating these banks; and, referring to the proceedings of the House on the subject of the Bank of the United States, seemed to think there was nothing like unanimity on that occasion. The gentleman was mistaken; for so great was the una nimity on the occasion referred to, that the yeas and nays were not even called for, and not a particle of dis. sent was heard when the motion was put from the Chair. In reference to the motion then before the House, Mr. E. said he should vote to refer it to the Committee on the District of Columbia; for he thought the remarks made by the gentleman from Maryland himself had disqualified him from acting on any committee which might have this subject under its investigation.

Mr. SHEPARD accepted the amendment offered by Mr. BOULDIN, as a modification of his motion.

The question was then taken on the motion to refer the petitions to the Committee on the District of Columbia, with instructions.

Mr. MANN, of New York, asked for the yeas and nays, which were ordered, and were:

YEAS-Messrs. John Q. Adams, Chilton Allan, Heman Allen, Bailey, Bell, Bond, Bouldin, Briggs, Bunch, John Calhoon, William B. Calhoun, Campbell, George Chambers, John Chambers, Childs, Claiborne, Clark, Coffee, Corwin, Crane, Cushing, Darlington, Deberry, Denny, Dickerson, Evans, Everett, Forester, Rice Garland, Glascock, Graham, Granger, Graves, Grayson, Grennell, Griffin, Hiland Hall, Hammond, Hard, Hardin, Harlan, Hazeltine, Hiester, Hoar, Howell, Wm. Jackson, Janes, Richard M. Johnson, Lane, Laporte, Lawler, Lawrence, Luke Lea, Lincoln, Love, Lyon, Samson Mason, Maury, McKennan, Mercer, Morris, Parker, James A. Pearce, Pettigrew, Phillips, Pickens, Pinckney, Potts, Reed, Rencher, Rogers, Russell, Schenck, William B. Shepard, Augustine H. Shepperd, Sloane, Spangler, Standefer, Steele, Storer, Taliaferro, Underwood, Vinton, Washington, Whittlesey, Lewis Williams, Sherrod Williams, Wise-88.

NAYS-Messrs. Barton, Beale, Bean, Beardsley, Beaumont, Bockee, Boon, Borden, Bovee, Boyd, Brown, Buchanan, Bynum, Cambreleng, Carr, Casey, Chaney, Chapman, Chapin, Cleveland, Coles, Connor, Craig, Cramer, Cushman, Davis, Doubleday, Dromgoole, Efner, Fairfield, Farlin, Fowler, French, Philo C. Fuller, William K. Fuller, Galbraith, James Garland, Gillet, Haley, Joseph Hall, Hamer, Hannegan, Samuel S. Harrison, Albert G. Harrison, Haynes, Henderson, Holsey, Hopkins, Howard, Hubley, Huntington, Huntsman, Ingham, Jabez Jackson, Jarvis, Joseph Johnson, Cave Johnson, John W. Jones, Benjamin Jones, Judson, Kennon, Kilgore, Kinnard, Klingensmith, Lansing, Joshua Lee, Thomas Lee, Leonard, Loyall, Lucas, Abijah Mann, Job Mann, Martin, John Y. Mason, Wil. liam Mason, May, McCarty, McKay, McKeon, McKim, McLene, Miller, Montgomery, Morgan, Muhlenberg, Owens, Page, Parks, Patterson, Franklin Pierce, Dutee J. Pearce, Phelps, John Reynolds, Joseph Reynolds, Ripley, Roane, Seymour, Shields, Smith, Sprague, Taylor, Thomas, John Thomson, Toucey, Towns, Turner, Turrill, Vanderpoel, Wagener, Ward, Ward. well, Webster, Weeks-113.

So the motion to refer the petitions to the Committee on the District was negatived.

The question then recurred upon the motion of Mr. THOMAS to refer the petitions to a select committee, with instructions.

Mr. THOMAS, by unanimous consent, withdrew the call for the yeas and nays on his motion, inasmuch as the House had, by the vote just taken, indicated a decided opinion on it.

[DEC. 31, 1835.

Mr. ADAMS moved to strike out that part of the instructions which provided that the committee should act in conjunction with any similar committee which might be appointed by the Senate.

Mr. THOMAS accepted the amendment, as a modification of his motion.

Mr. BOULDIN moved to amend the motion, by striking out so much as provided that all future memorials on this or similar objects be referred to the same committee. If this part of the motion of the gentleman from Maryland should prevail, it would preclude the possibility of a report during the present session, before which time not only the charters of these banks, but also that of the Bank of the United States, would expire, which would leave the District entirely without a banking institution. Under this state of the case, he was persuaded that the gentleman from Maryland would accede to the amendment he had proposed.

Before the question was taken on the amendment, Mr. WILLIAMS, of North Carolina, moved an adjournment; which was carried; when The House adjourned.

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 31.

Messrs. CLAIBORNE and DICKSON, Representatives from the State of Mississippi, appeared, were qualified, and took their seats.

Mr. WARDWELL moved to suspend the rule, in order to enable him to offer a resolution prohibiting, in future, the use of the hall of Representatives on the sabbath as a place of public worship; and the motion was rejected.

DISTRICT BANKS.

The House resumed the consideration of the resolution offered by Mr. THOMAS, of Maryland:

Resolved, That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the condition of the currency of the District of Columbia, to whom shall be referred all other memorials which may be presented to the present Congress, praying for an extension of the charters of the existing banks in said District of Columbia, or for the establishment of any other bank or banks in their stead; and to examine into the condition of the currency of said District; to inspect the books and to examine into the proceedings of said banks, to ascertain whether their charters have been violated or not, and whether any abuses or malpractices have existed in their management; to send for persons and papers, to examine witnesses on oath, and to appoint a clerk to record their proceedings.

Mr. BOULDIN said that, on looking carefully over the instructions moved by the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. THOMAS,] it did not appear to follow necessarily that all memorials and petitions should be presented to the committee before their final action on the subject. Although it did appear, from the general context, that all memorials and petitions should be laid before the committee before their final action; and although there might be, and probably was, a propriety in the committee having every thing before them in relation to the subject, still it did not necessarily follow that the committee should make no report until the whole time had expired during which they had the right to receive them. Believing the committee would report as soon as possible, and that all the memorials, petitions, and views, in regard to this matter, would be laid before them as soon as possible, he would withdraw his motion to strike out. He did not wish to throw any obstacle in the way of immediate and efficient action upon this subject.

Mr. GARLAND, of Louisiana, desired to be informed whether the House had the power, under the charters of