meritorious of them, was to give them a preference in the procurement of their titles. Why, then, make a distinction in this particular case? I have heard no reason urged for it which might not equally apply to the first settlers of every other part of Tennessee, and the other inhabitants of the Western district, and, indeed, to those of every other new country. There are many reasons why this class of citizens should be favored by the Legislature, in securing their homes in preference to others. But, while the public domain is sold at all, it might be going too far to give it away, merely because it has been settled upon. I confess that, between the amendment and the bill as amended by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. WICKLIFFE], I have very little choice. It is not, with me, a serious objection to the amendment that it proposes to perfect the titles throngh the agency of our State officers. Though not, ex officio, bound to perform the duty, I doubt not but they would do it for the fees. Nor do I believe that we shall have a Governor in Tennessee, though he receives no fee, who would think it an indignity to sign a poor man's grant, if authorized by Congress to do so.

I cannot take my seat without adverting to the censure yesterday attempted to be cast upou the Legislatures of North Carolina and Tennessee, by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. WOODS.] He indulged in a strain of crimination altogether uncalled for, and against which, no vindication, I trust, will be thought necessary. He availed himself of the occasion to say that my colleague [Mr. CROCKETT] had done himself great credit, and rendered the nation great service, by exposing the "management" and unfair means by which North Carolina and Tennessee had disposed of large quantities of land. I hope my colleague did not consider that a compliment. What! he do himself credit by enabling the gentleman from Ohio to speak reproachfully of Tennessee, upon his authority! I am sure he has too much Tennessee feeling to have that put on him for a compliment. He would rather spurn it as an insult. I will not now make a calculation of how much land Tennessee has been allowed by Congress, for public uses nor make a comparison between what she and others have got; that has just been done by my colleague [Mr. BLAIR], who has shown that Tennessee is much behind some others in actual advantages from that source. But I will ask gentlemen to remark this striking difference between our State and all the other new States, Kentucky excepted. In the others, neither the State nor the citizens are at any charge whatever in procuring their titles. The surveys, sales, patents, and every thing, are made by the General Government. On the contrary, we have had to support, for the last thirty years, at a very heavy expense, an extensive and complicated system of land machinery. Boards of Commissioners for the adjudication of warrants, surveyors, registers, and agents of various kinds, with all the incidental expenses occasioned by the process, so far as the same has not been borne by the land purchasers themselves, in office fees.

My object has been, without going into any of the controverted points of the subject, to present a plain and simple view of as much of it as will enable the House to decide with safety and certainty upon the proposition, whether it will withhold from Tennessee that which will be greatly to her interest to obtain, and from which the United States cannot expect to derive any advantage.

Mr. CULPEPER briefly replied to some remarks of Mr. BLAIR, which had a personal reference to himslf.

Mr. WOODS said he asked the indulgence of the House, for the purpose of making an explanation, to remove an impression which had, perhaps, been made by his remarks, in relation to the information received from the gentleman on his right [Mr. CROCKETT], to which he had referred. Sir [said Mr. W.], I received no information from that gentleman which he did not state in his place to this House. I never heard him say a word on the subject which he did

[JAN. 13, 1829.

not substantially repeat on this floor. It was stated, by the member from Tennessee, in his place, that three hundred and five thousand acres had been divided between that State and the North Carolina University. I referred to that fact, and I now have in my hand the act of the Legislature, passed on the 24th of November, 1825, page 37, by which it is provided that Tennessee should have two-thirds, and the University one-third, of the money arising from the sale of warrants for one hundred and five thousand acres, the right to which had been disputed. I understood one gentleman [Mr. BLAIR], to say, that Tennessee had never controverted or denied the justness and validity of the clains of North Carolina, or its citizens. Sir, I will read a paragraph of the compact entered into, on the 26th of August, 1822, between the agents of that State and the North Carolina University, published with the laws of Tennessee, of 1822, page 42. The preamble of that compact declares: Whereas the State of North Carolina hath issued to the President and Trustees of the University of North Carolina sundry land warrants, founded on military services, performed by certain officers and soldiers of her continental line, who have died, leaving no heirs in the United States; and whereas the State of Tennessee hath contended that the State of North Carolina ought not to have issued said warrants, by virtue of any law of said State, to the President and Trustees of said University, and that grants ought not to issue on the same." The States of Tennessee and North Carolina, when it united their interests, did compromise these differences; and we have been informed by the gentleman who reported this bill, that North Carolina has closed her offices, and, by law, provided against issuing any more warrants. [See Report, No. 32, Vol. I] The argument that we might, by this amendment, interfere with the rights of North Carolina, must, therefore, be without foundation. The same honorable member has said, that Tennessee had not received the amount of money I stated; and that thousands of acres, in the Hiwassee district, would not sell for one cent per acre. As I did not read the document, yesterday, to which I referred, I now beg leave to read an official letter from Nathaniel Smith. [Entry taken for the Hiwassee district, Senate Documents, vol. 4, doc. 156:] The amount sold, at the sale in 1820, I have no account of, not having any thing to do, at that time, with the Land Office. I have been informed, by the Treasurer of East Tennessee, who superintended the sales, the amount of sales was about four hundred and eighty thousand dollars; that the land sold averaged about four dollars per acre; and that the sum of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars had been paid into the Treasury." Mr. Smith also states that "the amount of land entered in that district, since the 2d of February, 1824, is five hundred and one thousand acres; for which the State had received, in cash, two hundred and seventy-six thousand two hundred and twenty dollars." The whole amount for which land had been sold, in that district, being, as I before stated, seven hundred and fifty-six thousand two hundred and twenty dollars. I also refer to another letter in the same volume [document 160], from an honorable member from Tennessee [Mr. MITCHELL], who says, " If my recollection serves me rightiy, between three hundred and fifty and four hundred thousand dollars were paid into the public treasury, from the entry of the lands, in that small district, after the whole of them had been culled and picked, at the sales which preceded the entry system." I will not longer trespass upon the House. My object, in rising, was to do justice to the gentleman on my right [Mr. CROCKETT], and to read the documents to which I referred yesterday.

Mr. POLK said, he should certainly not unnecessarily protract the discussion, at that late hour of the day, and after so much had been said; but, standing in the relation that he did to the subject before the House, having report

ed this bill from the select committee who had been charged with the subject, and frequent allusion having been made to him as the Chairman of that Committee, by several gentlemen, he felt it to be his duty, and he asked the indulgence of the House, to correct some errors into which he conceived gentlemen had fallen, and to meet some objections which had been urged against the bill. At first, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. LOCKE] had been pleased to refer to the information possessed by the Committee that reported the bill, and, especially, to that communicated by himself and his colleague, in reference to the true situation of the vacant lands in Tennessee. The gentleman opposed this bill upon the ground, chiefly, that we had not sufficient information in the country, and that he apprehended these lands were worth much more than was generally supposed. The gentleman, in his great zeal to defeat this bill, had gone so far as to say, (certainly without any data upon which to make the estimate) that these vacant shreds and patches of land were worth, and in his opinion would bring, to the United States, half a million, and perhaps a million of dollars. Mr. P. said that the gentleman's estimate was one made not only without proof to sustain it, but was against the positive proof before the House.

When the subject was before the Committee, he and his colleague, who were members of the Committee, had given such information as they possessed, as to the true situation and probable value of these lands. Their information was of course general and not minute. They had stated in substance, that the most valuable lands had been appropriated in satisfying the North Carolina warrants; that what remained were the refuse lands, lying not in compact bodies, out in detached parcels; and that, in their opinion, the United States, if they attempted to survey and bring them into market, according to the present land system of the United States, the amount of sales, if it should be practicable for them to do it at all, would not defray the expenses. They had called the attention of the Committee to the memorial of the Legislature of the State, in which a statement of the true situation of the lands was contained. This general statement was made, and [said Mr. P.] it was the true statement. Himself and his colleague could not, of course, state what precise number of dollars and cents it was worth, for their information was not so minute. With this general statement, and from the documents before them, a majority of the Committee thought it just to cede the lands to Tennessee to supply the deficiency in the common school lands, and agree to report the bill. The gentleman from Massachusetts was in a minority on the Committee; he was not, as he said, satisfied, and at his [Mr. LOCKE'E] suggestion, he, [Mr. P.] after the bill was reported, in order to satisfy, if possible, every individual, had, at the last session of Congress, addressed a letter to each of the Tennessee surveyors in that district of country, requesting specific information on the subject. The official statements of the surveyors was received, sustaining to the full extent the statement which had been made. He had presented those official statements to the House; they had been ordered to be printed, and had been, laid upon the table of every gentleman. And yet the gentleman complains of a want of information. What would satisfy him he knew not; but he was sure he would do him the justice to say, that he had used all the means in his power to procure, for him and for the House, the necessary information, to enable them to act understandingly on the subject. Sir, [said he] what are the official statements of the Tennessee surveyors, as to the quantity and value of these lands? He had [he said] at his table, whilst the discussion had been going on, made a rough estimate, taken from these official statements, which, if not in the opinion of the gentleman minutely accurate, certainly approximated to the truth, and varied but little from it. From these official statements, which he had then before him, VOL. V.-27

[H. OF R.

it appeared that there were about six hundred thousand acres of land south and west of the Congressional reservation line, lying in detached pieces and small bodies, that might be sold, a small portion of it for fifty cents an acre, a portion at twenty-five cents an acre, but much the greater portion at twelve and a half cents an acre; that the aggregate amount, according to the opinion of the surveyors, who were men of integrity and character, and who certainly knew the country better than the gentleman from Massachusetts, who had never seen it, and he imagined had never been nearer to it than Washington, for which they could be sold, at these prices, would be one hundred and seventeen thousand and fifty-five dollars; and that the balance of the vacant lands, being about three millions of acres, was exceedingly poor and sterile, could not be sold for any price, and would not be worth the annual taxes upon it. So much for the objection of the gentleman from Massachusetts, and his argument that the Committee that reported the bill, as well as the House, have not sufficient information.

But new objections have been started against this bill. A gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Woods] has risen to instruct the House on this subject; has made a long speech; and, if he has done nothing more, has at least convinced us of one thing, and that is, that he is profoundly ignorant of the whole subject. He should not follow him through his argument, (if argument it could be called) and expose the numerous errors into which he had fallen. In this he had been anticipated by his worthy colleague, [Mr. BLAIR] who had fully met and refuted them. There was one statement, however, that he had made, that he felt himself bound, as one of the Representatives from Tennessee, to notice. The gentleman had said that North Carolina and Tennessee had so managed it [such was his language] as to take upwards of three hundred thousand acres of the public lands, and divide them between them; or, in other words, the substance of the charge is, that they had appropriated them to their own use without authority. Sir, said he, such a baseless charge, manifesting such a want of information, against the character of the two States, coming from any other source than a member upon the floor, would not be entitled to the courtesy of an answer, much less to a formal vindication. But, having been made by the gentleman, not in his individual character, but as a member here, it is due, in courtesy to the House, to make a simple statement of facts, to put the matter to which he refers in its proper view. He could not, howrefrain first from saying, that the Legislature of his State were as pure, and as scrupulously honest and correct in their legislation, as any in the Union; and, as a Tennessean, he would not stand by in silence, and hear her denounced on the floor of Congress. What were the facts? North Carolina, when she ceded her western lands to the United States, reserved the right to satisfy, out of them, the claims of all her officers and soldiers who had served in her line during the revolutionary war. She reserved to herself the right to issue military warrants to the extent of her muster roll. The United States accepted the cession upon this condition, and subject to this incumbrance. North Carolina, about the same time, passed a general escheat law, vesting all escheated property in the State in her University. By a compact entered into between Tennessee and North Carolina, in 1804, and approved by Congress, North Carolina still reserved the exclusive right of issuing military warrants to the extent of her muster roll, as she had done in the cession act, and Tennessee undertook to perfect them into grants, out of the ceded territory. North Carolina accordingly continued to issue warrants as they were applied for by the owners, and Tennessee to satisfy them, until about the year one thousand eight hundred and twenty, when North Carolina took up her muster roll, and found the names of A, B, and C, soldiers of her line, who had performed service, and had not ap

ever,

plied for their warrants. Having reserved the exclusive right to issue military warrants, her Legislature, under her general escheat law, issued warrants to her University, based on the services of such as had not applied for their warrants; but provided that, if the soldier or his heirs should afterwards appear, and make application, he should have the warrant, or the land secured by it. These warrants, thus issued, were presented by the authorized agent of North Carolina to the Legislature of Tennessee, for adjudication and satisfaction, claiming them as escheated property to her University. Tennessee said, no; the lands out of which these warrants are to be satisfied, lie within the sovereignty of Tennessee. They maintained that escheat was an attribute of sovereignty; that, by the common law, lands escheated in England went to the king; that, in this country, by analogy, escheated property went to the sovereignty within which it lay; and that, of consequence, these lands being in Tennessee, if they escheated, they must escheat to the sovereignty-to the State Government of Tennessee. North Carolina replied, the inchoate or incipient title to these lands, originated within her sovereignty; that her soldiers performed the service for which the warrants had been issued; and that they escheated to her, or to her University, which she had by law constituted to take in her stead. Tennessee rejoined, that choses in action, or mere equities, were not the subjects of escheat, and that, until they were ripened into perfect titles, they could not escheat. These were the grounds assumed by the two States Neither doubted but that they were to be satisfied out of these lands. The question of difference between them was, to whom they belonged when satisfied. The two States could not agree, and for a time these claims were suspended. Ultimately, they appointed commissioners to settle it. North Carolina appointed two of her distinguished citizens commissioners on her part, and Tennessee appointed two commissioners on her part, all learned in the law. The commissioners met. They discussed the respective rights of the two States, and could not agree upon the abstract legal question which was to determine their respective rights. They ultimately agreed upon a compromise, and the claims were satisfied; and the Legislatures of the two States acquiesced in the settlement made by their commissioners. Was the United States injured? No. Why? Because, by the terms of the cession, all these claims were first to be satisfied, and it was a matter of no consequence to them who became the owners of them. As to the United States, it made no difference; they were to be satisfied. by the terms of the cession act, at all events. Now, sir, what can the gentleman from Ohio see in all this that was wrong? If the gentleman had gone into the investigation of this subject with a view not to search out objections real or imaginary, with a determination not to approve this bill at all events, but with a view to examine and decide upon its merits impartially, he could not have come to the monstrous conclusions he has, if, indeed, he could comprehend the subject at all. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. BRYAN] and the gentleman on his right, [Mr. BLAKE] and others, who gave to the subject a patient examination, at the last session, came to the conclusion that it was right to pass this bill, and they, with others, besides the Tennessee delegation, sustained it by an argument on that floor.

The gentleman from Ohio had referred to, and commented on, the report of the Committee which accompanied this bill. That report [Mr. P. said] contained the true land history of the two States, so far as it was ap. plicable to the subject now before us. Tennessee had been desirous, as therein stated, to close her land offices, and several times declared that all claimants, who should not present their claims within a given period, should be barred; but, as the periods of limitation had expired, she had never failed, whenever an honest claim was presented,

[JAN. 13, 1-29.

She was bound

again to open the door, and to satisfy it. by the compact to do so, and she never will be found disposed to close the door of justice, when a soldier of the Revolution shall knock at it for satisfaction. He said it was true, as stated in the report, that most, if not all, of the North Carolina claims, had been satisfied. But, if there were yet a few dormant claims, in the hands of heirs, minors, or femme couverts, this bill provided for their satisfaction. The representatives from North Carolina would not agree to the relinquishment without this provision. The memorial of the Legislature of Tennessee, now before the House, did not ask it on any other terms.

Mr. P. said he did not deem it necessary to repeat what he had said on a former day, in reference to the amendment offered by his colleague from the western district of Tennessee, and more especially since two of his colleagues [Mr. LEA and Mr. BLAIR] had clearly exposed its absurdity. It was impossible, when the House examined it to adopt it. Mr. P. said his colleague [Mr. CROCKETT] had, at the last session of Congress, agreed to the very bill in Committee which he now opposes; he had supported and voted for it in the House; and he would ask what had changed his opinions? what could justify the remark that fell from him the other day, that it was a trap? He knew his colleague did not at all times speak in measured language, and, therefore, he concluded that he did not fully comprehend the import of that remark, and many others that he had made against his own State. His colleague, he said, was co-operating by his course with the enemies of this bill, and contributing to its defeat. He had opposed himself to the Legislature of the State; to their instructions; to the whole Tennessee delegation; and it was painful to see him joining our enemies, and abusing the Legislature, and the State from which he comes. He had hoped his colleague had too much State pride to do so, but he had been mistaken; and the whole delegation from the State could not but regret his course. If the gentleman had harmonized with us, as he did at the last session, we had some prospect of effecting this measure-a measure which is due in justice to the State. In that event, his people would have been provided for by the State, as she had provided for all others similarly situated in other parts of the State. The actual settlers would have retained their little homes.

Mr. P. said he had already detained the House too long; he had risen to meet certain objections which had been made to this bill, and not to enter again into the discussion generally. He had, on former occasions, during the last and present session of Congress, given his views fully on the whole subject. After so much had been said, it would be worse than a waste of time now to repeat them. So far, therefore, as he was concerned, he had done with the discussion. The rights of Tennessee, he trusted, would be duly regarded; and the decision was with the House.

Mr. CARSON, of North Carolina, rose, in reply to Mr. WOODS, of Ohio. My object in rising [said he] is simply to do that justice to the State of North Carolina which she has a right to expect at the hands of her Representatives on this floor. She has been gravely charged, by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. WooDs] with having "managed to cheat and defraud this Government out of a large quantity of land," &c. I feel, sir, [said Mr. C.] that I am in a great degree relieved by the explanation just given by my friend from Tennessee, [Mr. POLK] which explanation, he was confident, would satisfy every honest and unprejudiced mind in the House, that, so far from North Carolina having acted with management and corruption, her whole course had been marked with the greatest liberality and most perfect fairness. Sir, all these lands were, originally, North Carolina's; and she gratutiously bestowed them on this Government, reserving such a quantity as might be necessary to satisfy all the claims of her officers and soldiers of the Revolution, with some other reservations,

JAN. 14, 1829.]

as expressed in her deed of cession, and which deed or act of cession was accepted by this Governinent, guarantying all its reservations. Previous to this act of cession, North Carolina passed an act giving to the University of that State all escheated lands, or lands that might escheat, for purposes of education, &c. A great number of warrants issued in favor of persons who were dead, leaving no heirs, since the admission of Tennessee, as a State, into the Union. Tennessee said, that escheat was an attribute of sovereignty, and that, therefore, she was entitled to all escheated lands within her dominion. North Carolina said, as the incipient title was in her, and as she had disposed of those lands anterior to her act of cession, that she was entitled to them, &c. And thus the dispute arose between those States, simply with regard to which of the States the escheated lands belonged, and this dispute was amicably settled, as explained by his honorable friend from Tennessee, [Mr. PоLK] no one ever doubting before, that the lands belonged to one or the other of the States. No, it has remained for the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. WooDs] to fabricate this groundless, and, I am constrained to say, false charge against North Carolina. He has farther said, sir, that he suspected" the Government had been cheated or wronged out of much more than the quantity spoken of by the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. CROCKETT] if the facts could be arrived at by the States of North Carolina and Tennessee. With regard to this part of the gentleman's charge, originated in his suspicions, I will only remind him of that rule of ethics which says, "he that is overly suspicious is himself corrupt." Whether it applies in the present case, I shall not undertake to decide I am aware that the extent of an inquiry resulting from a charge of this kind, is always commensurate with the importance or high standing of the source from which it emanates Whether North Carolina has much to fear in the present case, taking into consideration the very high standing of the gentleman here, as well as at home, as was manifested by a recent occurrence, I will leave to be decided by the House. But, it may be possible that some men make charges false in themselves, and with a full knowledge of their being so, simply with a view of giving themselves a factitious importance in eliciting retort. Whether this may have been the object of the gentleman in the present case, I shall not presume to judge. But one thing, I think, I may say most confidently: that is, that it will attach but very little additional consequence to any member on this floor to retort upon that gentleman with either courtesy or severity. For my own part, I must say that the gentleman's conduct has not been such as to entitle him to my courtesy; and if I were capable of severity, I trust I shall never be found exercising it upon one whose condition would rather elicit my sympathies than excite my anger.

Mr. BARTLETT now moved, after a few prefatory remarks, that the bill and amendments be laid upon the table; on which motion, Mr. LEA demanded the yeas and nays. They were ordered by the House, and, being taken, stood as follows:

YEAS. Messrs. Addams, Alexander, Samuel C. Allen, Robert Allen, Alston, Samuel Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Barber, Barker, Barney, Bartlett, Bassett, Isaac C. Bates, Beecher, Brown, Butman, Cambreleng, Claiborne, Condict, Conner, Coulter, Thomas Davenport, John Davenport, John Davis, Dorsey, Drayton, Everett, Findlay, John Floyd, of Georgia, Garrow, Gorham, Green, Hamilton, Harvey, Haynes, Healy, Hobbie, Hodges, Hoffman, Hunt, Ingersoll, Johnson, Johns, Keese, Kerr, Little, Locke, Long, Magee, Markell, Martin, Maxwell, McCoy, McIntire, McKean, Merwin, Miner, Thomas R. Mitchell, Muhlenberg, Newton, O'Brien, Orr, Pearce, Pierson, Plant, Ramsey, James F. Randolph, Reed, Rives, Russell, Sergeant, Shepperd, Sinnickson, Sloane, Sprague, Sterigere, Stewart, Storrs, Strong, Swann, Swift, Suther

[H. OF R.

land, Taber, Taylor, Tracy, Trezvant, Turner, Van Rensselaer, Verplanck, Vinton, Whipple, Whittlesey, Wickliffe, Williams, James Wilson, Ephraim K. Wilson, John J. Wood, Silas Wood, Woods, Woodcock, Wolf, John C. Wright -103.

NAYS.-Messrs. John Anderson, Archer, Baldwin, Barringer, Edward Bates, Bell, Blair, Blake, Bryan, Buckner, Chambers, Chilton, James Clark, Crockett, Crowninshield, Culpeper, Daniel, DeGraff, Desha, Duncan, Earll, Fort, Gilmer, Hallock, Hall, Hinds, Holmes, Isacks, Jennings, Lawrence, Lecompte, Lea, Leffler, Letcher, Lumpkin, Lyon, Mallary, Marable, Marvin, Maynard, McHatton, McLean, Mercer, Miller, John Mitchell, Thomas P. Moore, Nuckolls, Owen, Polk, Roane, Smith, Smyth, Sprigg, Stower, Taliaferro, Thompson, Ebenezer Tucker, Starling Tucker, Vance, Washington, Weems, Silas Wright, Jr. Yancey.-63.

So the motion prevailed, and the bill was laid upon the table accordingly.

WEDNESDAY, JAN. 14, 1829.

WASHINGTON AND FREDERICK TURNPIKE. On motion of Mr. WASHINGTON, the House then took up the bill to authorize a subscription of stock in the Washington and Fredericktown Turnpike Road Company; and the question being on agreeing to fill the blank for the number of shares with the words "five thousand," as reported by the Committee of the Whole, it was negatived-ayes 55, noes 66.

Mr. WASHINGTON then moved to fill the blank with the words "four thousand five hundred." In support of this motion, Mr. W. addressed the House at some length, giving a history of the company from the time of its incorporation. It had been incorporated for the purpose of making a turnpike road from this city to Fredericktown, in Maryland. Of this distance, the portion extending from this city to Rockville, fourteen miles, had been finished, and in use for some years; to aid in completing the residue, the Legislature of Maryland had required a certain contribution from certain banks in that State, as a condition of their incorporation. This aid had been applied by the company to completing the end of the road adjacent to Fredericktown, and in the construction of an expensive bridge over the Monocasy creek. This left a gap in the middle portion of the road, of twenty-one miles. The present bill was intended to provide for the completing of this portion. It asked for no donation, but merely for a subscription of stock, and this guarded by the condition that, before the Secretary of the Treasury should subscribe for a single share, he should be satisfied that ample provision was made for completing the whole road, on the McAdam plan, in the best and most solid manner. Individual subscription being insufficient to make up what the Government subscription should leave unprovided for, the United States would sustain no loss from lending its aid to complete this useful undertaking, because the amount of travel on the road, when completed, was sufficient to furnish toll to keep the road in order. It was in vain that the Government had expended such large sums for making roads in the Western country; while this gap was left in the line of communication, it prevented effectually the speedy passage of the mail to the westward. No longer ago than last winter, the mail stage had been actually stalled on this part of the road, containing the mails for nine Western States; besides this, during the winter season, those States were deprived of the use of this road in conveying their produce to Washington, the road being utterly impassable for loaded wagons. Even at so late a period of the year as the close of the last session of Congress, a stage had been upset, which contained ten members of the House. It was true no bones had been