ed of by the Clerk) conditioned for the good behavior of such negro or mulatto, and moreover to pay for the support of such person, in case he, she, or they, should hereafter be found within any township in this State, unable to support themselves; and if any negro or mulatto person shall migrate into this State, and not comply with the provisions of this act, it shall be the duty of the overseers of the poor of the township where such negro or mulatto person shall be found, to remove him immediately, as paupers are removed." This act goes on farther to impose a fine of one hundred dollars on any person or persons who shall employ a negro or mulatto contrary to the aforesaid provision, and liable always to maintain such, so illegally employed, when found necessary, &c.; and the fourth and last section of the act provides, that no black or mulatto person shall be permitted to give evidence in a court, or elsewhere, against a white person, &c. [H. OF R. perior Courts in each of the territorial districts, and the Circuit Courts, and other courts of the United States, of similar jurisdiction in criminal causes, in each district of the United States in which any offender against this act shall be first apprehended or brought for trial, shall have, and hereby are invested with, full power and authority to hear, try, and punish, all crimes, offences, and misdemeanors against this act; such courts proceeding in the same manner as if such crimes, offences, and misdemeanors, had been committed within the bounds of their respective districts." In support of his amendment Mr. INGERSOLL said, we have decided by the vote just announced, that, if any thing is done in regard to the Oregon country, it shall be more than sending a party to explore the territory. He was satisfied with that decision so far as it went: for, from every view he had been able Now, sir, to say nothing about the facilities with which to take of the subject, he was brought to the conclusion, this law may be gotten over, to the great injury of the own- that our interests in that quarter require some further leers of such property in States adjacent to Ohio, it clearly gislation from Congress than the mere sending out an exsets forth what I have already stated, to wit: that negroes pedition to look at the country, and furnish us with the and mulattoes are not considered or treated as citizens journal of their proceedings. There was, however, an emhardly as men, by those I might almost venture to call pre- barrassment in determining how far we can legislate on tenders to philanthropy, humanity, or christianity. Sir, it this disputed ground, without conflicting with treaty is to be feared too many of them are Christians by enact- stipulations. He was satisfied that the bill, as reported, ments of their Legislatures, as they would make the peo- would interfere with our existing engagements to Great ple of this District by the enactments of Congress. Were Britain, and therefore, he could not go for it in that shape. I a citizen of this District, sir, or a slave, I would pray to The convention so often alluded to, stipulates that the God to deliver me and mine from falling into the hands of country west of the Rocky Mountains shall remain "free such kind friends. Sir, one word more, and I have done. and open" to the citizens and subjects of the two conCan any man suppose for one moment, that either the tracting parties, during the continuance of the compact; State of Virginia or Maryland would have consented to and neither can recede without giving twelve months have ceded to the General Government the ten miles notice to the other. The erection of a territorial governsquare, if they had ever once supposed that Congress, ment, therefore, and granting portions of the soil as a here, in the midst of their slave population, would ever bounty to settlers, would be an exclusive occupancy on have entertained such a dangerous proposition for one moour part, in the teeth of the treaty. But while he was ment? No, sir, the honesty of those days cast a cloud restrained from going that length, satisfied, as he was, over the popularity-seeking policy of modern politicians. that the title to the country is with us, he was not only With a hope that an opportunity may be allowed the mem-willing, but anxious, that some decisive act should be done ber to reply, I will now, sir, with my thanks to the House on our part, which should indicate our determination not for their indulgence, take my seat. to surrender one particle of our claim-leaving the ques[When Mr. W. concluded, the hour for the consideration tion of a territorial government to be settled hereafter, of resolutions had elapsed.] when the existing convention would not be in our way. For the present, it is not necessary to advance a step farther than the British have gone; but the obligations of interest and duty require that we should go pari passu with them. They have erected, and now maintain forts for the protection of their traders and hunters. The amendment of the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. DRAYTON] very properly proposes that we should do the same. But they have gone farther than this; they have covered the whole territory with their criminal and civil jurisdiction; and those who resort to it, are amenable to the courts of Canada for all violations of their laws. With OCCUPANCY OF THE OREGON RIVER. On motion of Mr. FLOYD, of Virginia, the House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. The question was put on the amendment offered on Monday by Mr. TAYLOR, to the amendment offered by Mr. DRAYTON, and decided in the negative. Mr. INGERSOLL now offered the following amendment to that of Mr. DRAYTON: “And be it further enacted, If any citizen of the United States shall, within the territory or district of country lying west of the Rocky Mountains, south of 54 degree and 40 minutes north latitude, and north of the 42d degree of north latitude, commit any crime, offence, or misdemeanor, which, if committed elsewhere, would be punished by the laws of the United States; or if any person shall, within such part of the territory or district of country as belongs to the United States, west of the Rocky Mountains, commit any such crime, offence, or misdemeanor, upon the property or person of any citizen of the United States, every such offender, on being thereof convicted, shall suffer the like punishment as is provided by the laws of the United States for the like offences, if committed within any place or district of country under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. The trial of all offences which shall be committed under this act shall be in the district where the offender is apprehended, or in which he may first be brought, and the Su this act of the British Parliament before me, [said Mr. I.] I cannot, for one, refuse to send our laws along with our citizens, if they choose to go there, any more than I would to protect them by the erection of a fort. It was to meet the British legislation in all its bearings, that he had offered the amendment to the consideration of the Committee; and he sincerely hoped we should not give occasion for its being urged upon us hereafter, that we have at this day waived any of our rights to the territory in question, by silently acquiescing in the foreign jurisdiction now exercised there, or by refusing to spread our flag and our laws coextensive with our rightful claims. It was true that Great Britain did not, in her negotiations with us, claim to apply her jurisdiction farther than was necessary to protect her own subjects; but, on the contrary, disclaimed any other intention, though the language of the act of Parliament was certainly very general, and seemed to be applicable to all persons who might be in the territory. But the amendment he had offered had no such apparent bearing; it was confined to the protection of citizens of the United States, in their property and person. Can Great Britain complain of this? Surely, if the "free and open" intercourse with that territory, guarantied to the British by the convention, in common with ourselves, cannot be made secure to them, without carrying their laws along with their hunting expeditions, we have had abundant evidence, in the repeated murders of our own hunters beyond the mountains, that our citizens require at our hands a corresponding protection. Besides, Great Britain is estopped by her own acts from complaining of our going thus far in our legislation; and more than this, he did not ask of the Committee, but any thing less would be injustice to ourselves. Mr. I. said he was free to confess, that he never had formed a very flattering picture of the Northwest Coast of our Continent-that is, of its attractions for an agricultural people. He preferred to see it remain a hunting ground, from which our fur traders can draw some of the treasures that are now monopolized by the Hudson's Bay Company, rather than see it erected into a sovereign State. But, whatever our preferences may be in this respect, it was our duty to protect our citizens whose enterprise may lead them there, and it was no less our interest to secure the harbor which the mouth of the Oregon offers, to our hardy navigators who frequent the coast. He was not anxious to hasten the growth of a new State beyond the Rocky Mountains, for he was aware it would have but few ties, aside from its weakness and dependence on our naval power, to bind it to this side of the Continent. Its trade, if the country should ever be settled by a permanent agricultural population, as it must be before it can grow into a State, would not probably cross the mountains to come to us, but would naturally seek the waters of the Pacific. For all commercial purposes, India, and the islands of the South Seas, would be to a thriving population there, what Europe and the Atlantic islands are to us. But, although he entertained these opinions, still, when the question was put-and turn it as you may, it will come to this, whether we shall surrender this vast territory into the hands of the British, or maintain our own jurisdiction there, he was ready to give a positive and decisive answer. It should not, with his consent, go into the hands of a foreign Power. That country once annexed to Canada, with its formidable Indian tribes in the train of the agents of the Hudson's Bay Company, would be to our advancing frontiers, what Canada has been in all our Indian wars. Sir, we are not without experience on this subject. The history of our Western settlements gives us ample evidence of Indian aggressions, stimulated by the influence of white men within the bounds of Canada. We have felt this hidden influence in all our frontier contests, from the days of the Revolution down to the declaration of the late war with England, or rather to the battle of Tippecanoe, which shortly preceded it. Nor have we since ceased to feel its effects you felt it to the quick, on the frontiers, throughout the war with England, and you feel it now; yes, in the very territory about which we are told not to legislate, our citizens are shot down by Indians, armed with British rifles. And with these facts staring us in the face, are we to hold back and hesitate, lest we give offence to the British Government, in deciding to protect our citizens by the establishment of a fort, or the extension of our laws into this territory? Let it not be said that the soil of the country is not sufficiently inviting (it was called the other day, in debate, a region of "pennyroyal") to induce the British to occupy it. To say nothing of the immense fur trade derived from the country, the harbor at the mouth of the Oregon, commanding the upper country, convenient in its position in reference to India, the Sandwich Islands, the new nations bounding on the West Coast of our Continent, presented sufficient attractions for the colonial grasp of Great Britain. [JAN. 7, 1829. He did not pretend to much sagacity in matters of this sort, but he verily believed that not a twelvemonth would elapse after we should abandon our claim to this position, before the mouth of that river would be controlled by the guns of a fortress, manned by our great commercial rival. Is it asked what reason we have to suppose this? The answer will be found in the policy of that nation, which is to plant a colony from her superabundant population, wherever she can penetrate with a fleet. This policy is identified with the immense power which she wields; and will be always pushed to its farthest limits. Small in territory at home, her extensive possessions abroad are towers of her strength in every part of the world. No spot, however sterile, is lost sight of, if it can furnish new facilities to her commerce. She will fortify, at the expence of millions, a rock in the Ocean, if it can be made a safe resting place for her merchantmen, or a convenient rendezvous for her ships of war. We Mr. I. said he would now notice more particularly an objection which was urged yesterday against our establishing military posts in the territory, derived from the third article of the convention of 1818, as renewed in 1828. That article undoubtedly prohibits the exclusive occupancy of either party, and leaves the whole country "free and open" to both. But he did not advocate an exclusive possession, nor does either or all of the amendments proposed contemplate any thing of that sort. only ask to occupy the country in the same way that the other party occupy it-not to exclude them. But one difficulty lies here: we have hitherto found that it is impossible for our citizens to have a "free and open" intercourse with the territory, unless they have suitable forts for their protection against the surrounding tribes, as well as to make an impression on those more distant, who may occasionally visit them. Without some shelter of this kind, the convention becomes a dead letter to us. If, therefore, we have the rights, which all concede that we have, under the third article of the convention, to an unmolested occupancy coextensive with that of Great Britain, the instrument which recognizes this right, necessarily implies such an occupancy on our part as is now proposed: for the country, filled with savages as it is, will admit of no other. Taking the article even by itself, there was no difficulty in the case. It should be remembered that we do not propose to send a garrison into the country to drive the British out, but merely to let our own citizens in. If, however, there were any doubts in looking at this clause by itself, those doubts have certainly been removed by the British themselves. They have put both a verbal and a practical construction on the article which has been here interposed, that frees us from all embarrassment in arriving at its true meaning. They have erected and now maintain a chain of posts, extending from Canada to the waters of the Oregon, or Columbia River. But, it is asked, were their forts erected anterior to, or since, the date of the convention? So far as the argument is concerned, it was no sort of consequence when the forts were built, if they have been strengthened since the date of the convention, and are now maintained, which is not denied. If an occupancy, protected by a military post, is inconsistent with the terms of our engagement, as has been urged, then it was the duty of Great Britain, after signing the article in question, to dismount her guns, and abandon the posts. She did not do it, and cannot now complain of our adopting her own practical construction. But we do not stop here. The British negotiators have admitted to our minister that they do not object to our erecting forts. This is abundantly evident in the letters of Mr. Gallatin, of the 2d and 20th of December, 1826, which had been already, in course of the debate, brought more particularly to the notice of the Committee. Thus much for the understanding of this subject by the British authorities. How has it always been considered by our own Government? The convention was first formed in 1818, under the administration of Mr. Monroe, and while Mr. Adams was Secretary of State. But so far from their supposing that the establishment of military posts would interfere with the third article, we find Mr. Monroe recommending the measure in 1822, and the present Executive did the same, in his message at the opening of the nineteenth Congress. The British Government have, therefore, not only told us what their construction of the article is, but they have been fully apprised of our construction of it, by the Executive recommendations just referred to. And yet, with a full knowledge of all that we have contemplated and all that we now propose, that Government renewed the convention with us during the last year, without hinting a syllable of complaint. After this, it is too late to anticipate such objections from that quarter. A few words as to what was intimated by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. BATES], that our existing criminal laws are sufficient to protect our citizens in the Indian country beyond the Rocky Mountains, and he would be done with the subject. Our criminal code extends to places under the "sole and exclusive" jurisdiction of the United States; but the country to which this amendment is applicable, is not under our sole and exclusive jurisdiction; it is held by us as tenants in common with a foreign power, and our laws cannot reach there, unless extended by a new act. We have, it is true, also provided for the protection of our citizens when visiting Indian nations with whom we have treaties, but we have no treaties with the tribes beyond the Rocky Mountains. No part of this region is reached by our criminal laws. It was to supply what here appeared to be wanted, and at the same time to give measure for measure with the British Government, that he had framed the amendment, and which he hoped would be, by the Committee, favorably received. Mr. DRAYTON now modified his amendment as follows: by striking out, in sixth and seventh lines of the first section, "not exceeding four hundred men," and inserting, "to give effectual protection to our citizens, in their commercial or other pursuits." By inserting in the fourth line, second section, after the word "select," the following," accompanied by a suitable military escort." [H. of R. Mr. D. added, that it was his intention, when he rose, to have occupied the time of the Committee no longer than to enable him to explain the modifications of his own amendment, and to suggest to the gentleman from Connecticut the modification of his, which he had noticed. But, as I am upon the floor, I will, in a few words, reply to some of the objections which have been made to the amended bill. I did not suppose, after the discussion which has been had, that our right to adopt the course provided for in the bill, would have been doubted. If we are entitled to occupy the territory, can it be questioned that we may render that occupation secure from the attacks of barbarous hoards, or jealous rivals? Is not the most appropriate mode for this end the employment of our military force, if without it that end cannot be obtained? Were our merchantmen to sail up the Oregon, to traffic with the inhabitants of its borders, would it be denied that their navigators might be protected by our national ships? And, in principle, is there any difference between land and naval protection, between defending our citizens within the waters of a river and upon its banks? Can any distinction be drawn between convoying our citizens upon the ocean, the common highway of all, and protecting them in a territory, which is common to Great Britain and to ourselves? Gentlemen will surely not continue to urge that we cannot erect a fortress west of the Stony Mountains, without impugning our treaty with Great Britain, if it can be made apparent that this right has, by Great Britain herself, been unequivocally conceded to us. Mr. Rush, our minister at the Court of London, in a letter written by him to our Secretary of State, dated 14th February, 1818, says, "Lord Castlereagh admitted, in the most ample extent, our right to be reinstated, and to be the party in possession, while treating of the title." In October of the same year, a few months after this conversation, the convention was signed at London (one of the subscribers to which was Mr. Rush) by the third article of which it was agreed that the harbors, bays, &c, &c., should be "free and open" for the term of ten years, to the citizens and subjects of the two powers. Shortly after the execution of the convention Great Britain despatched a naval officer, expressly to deliver possession of the country to our agent. By that officer, it was delivered to Mr. Mr. DRAYTON said that he had made these modifi- Prevost, as the agent of the United States, and his receipt cations in the first section, because it appeared to him that for it was taken in formal terms. We have then the a limitation, in the law, of the number of troops to be em- verbal admission of the British minister, that we were to ployed, would infringe upon the power of the President, be considered the party in possession; the treaty, which who is authorized, by the constitution, to exercise his dis- contains nothing impairing this admission; and the solcretion in judging of the military force necessary to effect emn delivery of the territory by the British Government, an object, within the sphere of his duties; and because, by in perfect accordance with, and in corroboration of, the expressing in the law the precise purpose for which a for- previous official admission. Were Great Britain now tress would be garrisoned, no ground could remain for to remonstrate against our acting in a manner consistent exception, even with those who were most apprehensive with her official declarations and her official conduct, that we should violate our stipulation in the convention of whilst all that the convention requires is preserved to her, 1818. It would thus be evident that we did not contem- she, not the United States, would be guilty of a breach of plate going beyond Great Britain; and, as we did not re- contract. I would not advocate any proceeding of our gard her act to be a departure from the meaning of the Government which should infringe upon the law of nations convention, she could not justly be offended at our follow- or upon a treaty; but I should be as unwilling to refrain ing, whilst we did not pass beyond, her example. The from those measures which our duty to our fellow citizens additional words, in the second section, were inserted, be- demanded from us, merely because, upon a strained and cause, without adequate military protection, the personal perverted construction of our compact, we are presumed to safety of our engineers would be endangered. impair its obligations. Mr. D. did not object to the amendment of the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. INGERSOLL], provided so much of it should be stricken out as made British subjects amenable to our tribunals. We certainly should not admit the right of Great Britain to legislate for us, and to render our citizens responsible to her courts: upon a parity of reason ing, therefore, we could not render her subjects responsible to our jurisdiction. He submitted it to the consideration of the gentleman from Connecticut so to modity his amendment as to erase from it the exceptionable paragraph. I am opposed to giving the notice of twelve months to Great Britain, which the gentleman from Maryland considers would be requisite, according to the convention of 1828; because it would be unnecessary, and productive of delay, and perhaps of serious consequences. The fact of the passage of this bill, should it become a law, would be known to the British minister residing in Washington. Were we to give information of it finally, we must wait until the communication had been forwarded to the Court of London, and an answer to it had been returned, otherwise the notice would be a mockery. This unavoidable delay would be suffered merely for the purpose of informing Great Britain that we were about to do that which we were already authorized to do, under our existing relations. Notice is to be given, under the convention of 1828, solely in the event of one of the contracting parties desiring to abrogate it. Now, it is by no means the intention of Congress to invalidate the convention. Were the notice, therefore, to be transmitted, which the gentleman from Maryland recommends, and which other gentlemen have recommended, the inference from it would be, that we were about to annul the convention, and to destroy the harmony now subsisting between Great Britain and the United States. The gentleman from New York [Mr. TAYLOR] said, that if, according to what I had expressed, the country might never be ours, it would be better that we should do no more than explore it, instead of erecting fortresses. Should the country never be ours, which I think is little to be apprehended, the exploration suggested by the gentleman would be as worthless to us as if its theatre had been the deserts of Siberia; whereas, so long as we possess the territory, which will be for many years, whatever may be the ultimate issue of the opposing claims, it is important that we should adopt that course of policy which will secure to our citizens the benefits of a lucrative commerce, of which they are now deprived, and which will be restored to them by the protection of the Government. Mr. INGERSOLL said that he had intended to avoid the difficulty which the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. DRAYTON] apprehended, and believed it would be found, on examination, that his amendment was not obnoxious to the objection urged against it. He proposed to punish offences committed by citizens of the United States within certain degrees of latitude, without going into the question of title. This, it must be conceded, we have a right to do. He also had inserted a clause to punish offences if committed on the property or persons of our own citizens, by any persons, whether citizens or not, if done on any part of the territory belonging to the United States, without defining the limits or boundaries of such part. He thought Great Britain could not complain of this. If no part of the territory belonged to the United States, this clause in the amendment would be inoperative; but if any portion belonged to us, it was right that, on so much of it, we should enforce the laws against criminals, to whatever nation they might belong. Great Britain did not object to our jurisdiction over territory admitted to be ours, as he believed was a part of the country in question, though he thought our title good to the whole of it. What she objected to was our marking out the lines of a new territorial government on disputed ground. Mr. Gallatin, in one of his letters, says it seemed to be acquiesced in by the British negotiators that we might establish even a territorial government, if it was not confined "exclusively" to the country in question; that is, if its boundaries should be described in general terms; "embracing all the possessions of the United States west of a line, that should be some distance from, and east of, the Stony Mountains." That part of the amendment now offered which was applicable to other persons than our own citizens, was in the spirit of the British admission to which Mr. Gallatin had alluded. But as some gentlemen, friendly to the bill, had doubts, though Mr. I. said he had none, in this particular, he would modify the amendment so as to obviate the objection, reserving to himself the right to renew it as originally offered, if it should be thought best, at a future time. [Mr. I. then modified his amendment accordingly.] Mr. RICHARDSON objected to the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Connecticut, [Mr. INGERSOLL] because it would be partial and ineffectual for the attainment of its object. For the same reason,he voted against the amendment proposed by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. TAYLOR.] That amendment proposed simply a sur [JAN. 7, 1829. vey of the Oregon territory. After what has passed in this House, such a measure would be considered as one of a timid and doubtful policy. It would be considered as an admission, in the face of the world, that this Government is doubtful of its right to the territory. And what impression, sir, would such a course of policy make on the Indian tribes and the British citizens of that territory? In that territory, it is estimated that there are at least two hundred thousand Indians. They are supplied with firearins, and are under British influence. Emboldened by the timid policy of this Government, and roused to jealousy by causes which could not be traced, they would annihilate at a blow your corps of engineers, proposed by the amend ment to be employed, without any other protection. Such an event would unavoidably lead to war between the two Governments. If this Government should establish military posts, with the admission that this is all that it has a right to do, this measure seems likely to result in war. The British Government now has military posts in that territory, occupying the most favorable positions. Will they give place to posts, to be established by this Government? If the territory be ours, it is better for us, and would be better for the British, that their posts should be at once excluded. Sir, I am opposed, in a case like this, when on all hands the right to the territory is admitted to be ours, to a course that, by its indecision, invites resistance. The original bill seems not to be understood. It proposes a process of measures, indicating a determination of this Government with respect to its course. One section of the bill provides that the President may exercise his discretion with regard to the event of establishing a territorial government. This would obviate the objection arising out of the existing convention between this Government and the Government of Great Britain. For these general reasons, [said Mr. R.] I am opposed to the amendments offered by each of the gentlemen. After some remarks from Mr. WEEMS, in reply to Mr. DRAYTON, on the subject of giving notice to the British Government, the question was put on Mr. INGERSOLL'S amendment, and carried. Mr.WEEMS now proposed to amend Mr.DRAYTON'S amendment, by inserting therein the following: Add to the second section, "And due notice hereof has been given in good faith to the British Government" This amendment was opposed by Mr. FLOYD, and advocated by the mover; and the question being put it was rejected. Mr. DRAYTON'S amendment, as amended by Mr. INGERSOLL, was then adopted. The last section of the bill was now read, which contains the appropriation for the expense of the proposed expedition. Mr. DRAYTON moved to fill the blank with ten thousand dollars. Mr. FLOYD objected to this sum as insufficient, and proposed twenty-five thousand dollars; which motion prevailing, the blank was so filled accordingly. The bill, as above amended in Committee of the Whole, was in the following form: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress asseinbled, That the President of the United States be hereby authorized to erect a fort or forts in that part of the Northwestern Coast of America, which is situated west of the eastern base of the Stony Mountains, between forty-two` and fifty-four degrees and forty minutes of north latitude, and to garrison them with a competent number of the United States' troops, to give effectual protection to our citizens in their commercial or other pursuits. SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the President be, and he is hereby, authorized to cause the aforesaid territory to be explored by such officers of the corps of engineers as he shall select, accompanied by a suitable JAN. 8, 9, 1829.] Cumberland Road -Arkansas Territory-Oregon River.-District Slavery. military escort, and that he may delay sending thereto any of the troops of the United States until after such exploration shall have been made. "Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, If any citizen of the United States shall, within the territory or district of country lying west of the Rocky Mountains, south of 54 degrees and 40 minutes of north latitude, and north of the 42d degree of north latitude, commit any crime, offence, or misdemeanor, which, if committed elsewhere, would be punished by the laws of the United States; or, if any person shall, within such part of the territory or district of country as belongs to the United States, west of the Rocky Mountains, commit any such crime, offence, or misdemeanor, upon the property or person of any citizen of the United States, every such offender, on being thereof convicted, shall suffer the like punishment as is provided by the laws of the United States for the like offences, if committed within any place or district of country under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. The trial of all offences which shall be committed under this act shall be in the district where the offender is apprehended, or into which he may first be brought; and the Supreme Courts in each of the territorial districts, and the Circuit Courts, and other Courts of the United States, of similar jurisdiction in criminal causes, in each district of the United States in which any offender against this act shall be first apprehended, or brought for trial, shall have, and hereby are invested with, full power and authority to hear, try, and punish all crimes, offences, and misdemeanors, against this act; such Courts proceeding in the same manner as if such crimes, offences, and misdemeanors, had been committed within the bounds of their respective districts. "Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That, to carry into effect the provisions of this act, the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars is hereby appropriated, to be paid out of any money in the Treasury, not otherwise appropriated." CUMBERLAND ROAD The Oregon Bill was then laid aside, and on motion o Mr. MERCER, the Committee proceeded to take up the bill for the preservation and repair of the Cumberland Road. Mr. MERCER moved to add to the 9th section"Nor shall the same be less, in any one year, than one hundred and twenty dollars; and in case of any deficiency in the amount collected by any toll-gatherer, below the sum of one hundred and twenty dollars, the residue shall be paid out of the other tolls collected on the said road." The various blanks of this bill having been filled, the Committee rose. f Mr. WEEMS hoped the gentleman from Georgia would withdraw the motion for the previous question, as he felt assured the gentleman from Pennsylvania was desirous of replying to what he had advanced Mr. ALEXANDER then moved to lay the preamble and resolutions upon the table. [H. OF R. On this motion, Mr. WOODCOCK demanded the yeas The hour allotted to reports and resolutions having now expired, the subject was laid over until to-morrow. Mr. WICKLIFFE moved to suspend the rule respecting the hour, for this day. He did so, he said, in mercy to the House, that the subject might, if possible, be finished now. But the motion did not prevail. TERRITORY OF ARKANSAS. The House then took up the bill, returned from the Senate, "to authorize the citizens of the Territory of Arkansas to elect certain officers," together with sundry amendments Mr. BARBOUR, from the Committee on the Judiciary, explained the several amendments, and moved their adoption by the House, with one slight modification. A desultory debate arose on that one which goes to annul the act of the Legislative Council of Florida, fixing the seat of justice in Jackson county. This was objected to by Messrs. VINTON and STRONG, as rescinding an act of a local character, in which the Council had not exceeded its authority. This, they insisted, Congress ought never to do It would lead to endless applications from the citizens of the Territories on questions purely local, and greatly encumber the legislation of this House. The amendment was defended by Messrs. P. P. BARBOUR, WHITE, and ISACKS, as being an improper interference, by the Council, with an affair which properly pertained to the people of each county to settle for themselves. This was the only instance in which such interference had taken place. The amendments were finally concurred in. THE OREGON BILL. The bill for the occupation of the Oregon River came up, as reported by the Committee of the Whole, with the amendments. Mr. TAYLOR, adverting to the vote of 61 to 60, by which his amendment had been rejected in Committee, now offered it again, and demanded that the question upon its adoption be taken by yeas and nays. They were ordered by the House, and being taken, were as follows: yeas, 72-nays, 84. So the amendment was rejected. Mr. FLOYD moved to amend the bill in its first section, by inserting a clause, directing the President to erect one of the Forts within tide-water on the Oregon, and to call it Astoria. Before the bill was ordered to its third reading, FRIDAY, JANUARY 9, 1829. SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. The preamble and resolutions on this subject offered by Mr. MINER, coming up as the unfinished business of yesterday morning, Mr. WRIGHT, of Ohio, moved to amend the preamble, by inserting in its commencement the words, "it is alleged that," so as to change the statements it contained from the form of a direct assertion of fact, to a statement of allegations merely. Mr. MINER accepted this amendment as a modification of what he had offered. Mr. WILDE, after a few introductory remarks, now moved the previous question. This motion was sustained by the House. Mr. WICKLIFFE then demanded that the question be divided, and the vote taken first on the preamble, which |