JAN. 10, 1832.] Lost Property. [H. OF R. These are my reasons for a select committee, and I floor, rose, and addressed the House in support of his prohope it may be granted. position. He wished, he observed, to impress upon their Mr. LEWIS CONDICT, of New Jersey, got the floor.consideration the necessity of attending to the just claims He remarked that this debate had already swelled to a of a large portion of our fellow-citizens for indemnity considerable volume upon a question of mere reference, for sacrifices which they had incurred by the destruction which, strictly speaking, was not a debatable question. of their property during the last war. He would wish To bring back the practice of the House to parliamentary the House to view the resolution in that light, and not as usage, and to put an end to a debate already too far ex- a mere resolution of inquiry alone. It might, perhaps, tended, he moved for the previous question. In this motion he was sustained by a majority of the House, (96 to 84,) and the previous question being put, in this form: "Shall the main question be now put?" it was decided in the affirmative. The main question was then put (Mr. Davis having withdrawn his motion to refer the memorial to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union) upon the reference of the memorial to the Committee of Ways and Means, and decided in the affirmative, by yeas and nays, as follows: be supposed that, in the course he had proposed to be pursued, and, indeed, it had been intimated, he had acted too generally, as it would open the way to too great a number of claims; but he considered the step warranted by precedents on the journals of the House. It was well known that an act of Congress had been passed relative to the sufferers on the Niagara frontier, and others, in different parts of the country. The subject had been brought under the notice of that House--it had met with a full discussion, and an act for the partial relief of many of them had been founded on the claims advanced. It was YEAS.-Messrs. Adams, Chilton Allan, Allison, Arm-true these claimants, he meant those to whom he had strong, Arnold, Ashley, Babcock, Banks, Noyes Barber, alluded as having claims as yet unsatisfied, might have John S. Barbour, Barringer, Barstow, Isaac C. Bates, gone, as they still, if they chose, might go, to the trouble Bell, Briggs, Bucher, Burd, Burges, Cahoon, Choate, of coming there, and repeating an often told story of their Collier, Lewis Condict, Silas Condit, Eleutheros Cooke, distress. Petitions might have been signed by a number Bates Cooke, Cooper, Corwin, Coulter, Craig, Crane, of those who were entitled to relief, and referred from Crawford, Creighton, John Davis, Dearborn, Denny, the table of the House to the appropriate committees; Dickson, Doddridge, Drayton, Duncan, Ellsworth, Geo. but where, he would ask, was the necessity of doing this, Evans, Joshua Evans, Edward Everett, Horace Everett, of bringing forward claims individually and singly, when Gilmore, Grennell, Heister, Hughes, Hunt, Huntington, the object which they had in view, the satisfaction of their Ingersoll, Irvin, Isacks, Jenifer, Richard M. Johnson, just claims, could be accomplished with more facility by a Kendall, Kennon, Henry King, Letcher, Lyon, Marshall, comprehensive measure, which should include all of the Maxwell, Robert McCoy, McDuffie, McKennan, Mercer, same class? Besides, might not the representative of the Milligan, Muhlenberg, Newton, Pearce, Pendleton, people bring forward the subject on that floor, in obediPitcher, Potts, Randolph, John Reed, Root, Russel, Wm. ence to the wishes of those whom he represented? He B. Shepard, Slade, Southard, Speight, Stanberry, Stew-repeated that there was a precedent for the course he had art, Sutherland, Taylor, Philemon Thomas, Tompkins, pursued, and yet that course had been considered to have Tracy, Vance, Verplanck, Vinton, Washington, Wat- been an erroneous one on his part. One of the gentlemough, Wilkin, Elisha Whittlesey, Frederick Whittle- men who had opposed the adoption of his resolution, [Mr. sey, Edward D. White, Wickliffe, Wilde, Young.-100. WHITTLESEY, of Ohio,] had expressed a hope that it would NAYS.--Messrs. Adair, Alexander, Anderson, Angel, undergo a full discussion in the House. He [Mr. C.] supAppleton, Archer, Barnwell, James Bates, Beardsley, posed the call for discussing it to be parliamentary, or it Bergen, James Blair, John Blair, Boon, Bouck, Bouldin, would not have proceeded from that experienced memJohn Brodhead, John C. Brodhead, Cambreleng, Carr, ber; but, he would ask, what information did gentleman Carson, Chandler, Chinn, Claiborne, Clay, Coke, Conner, possess on the subject, which, being elicited by discussion, Daniel, Davenport, Warren R. Davis, Dayan, Dewart, would cause the House to decide against the inquiry that Doubleday, Felder, Findlay, Fitzgerald, Ford, Foster, was asked? He certainly did not entertain a thought of Gaither, Griffin, Thomas H. Hall, William Hall, Ham- taking the House by surprise, in submitting the resolumons, Harper, Hawes, Hawkins, Hoffman, Hogan, Hol- tion; he proposed only the reference of the subject to a land, Horn, Howard, Hubbard, Jarvis, Jewett, Cave committee, in order that the facts might be examined and Johnson, Charles C. Johnston, Kavanagh, Adam King, reported upon to the House for its action. That was noLamar, Lansing, Leavitt, Lecompte, Lewis, Mann, Mar- thing very extraordinary. He apprehended that a condis, Mason, McCarty, William McCoy, McIntire, Thomas currence in the resolution did not commit any member as R. Mitchell, Newnan, Nuckolls, Patton, Pierson, Plum- to the measure itself, should it come into the House in the mer, Polk, Edward C. Reed, Rencher, Roane, Aug. H. shape of a bill. Again, he would ask, for whose benefit Shepperd, Soule, Standifer, Stephens, Francis Thomas, was the measure intended? It was for the benefit of a reWiley Thompson, John Thomson, Ward, Wardwell, spectable and worthy class of our citizens, inhabiting the Wayne, Weeks, Wheeler.-90. Northwest border of the Union, who had merited, but had not received, the attention of Congress, and who had not been participants in the indemnity granted by the Mr. IuRIE, of Pennsylvania, was present, but was excused from voting. So the memorial was referred to the Committee of former laws to the sufferers from the enemy's devastations. Ways and Means. TUESDAY, JANUARY 10. LOST PROPERTY. After disposing of a large number of other resolutions, the House resumed the consideration of the resolution moved by COOKE, of New York, on the 6th instant, providing for the more effectually carrying into effect the act of the 9th of April, 1816, authorizing the payment for property lost, captured, or destroyed, whilst in the military service during the late war. Mr. COOKE, of New York, who had possession of the It was a matter of a private nature, if he might so express H. OF R.] Apportionment Bill. [JAN. 10, 1832. This to the guardians of the public treasury, and were not to that each State lost its supernumerary fraction. be precluded because their claims were of long stand- early exposition of the constitution had been afterwards ing. Time quieted no just demand; and that Govern- regarded as settled, and had been acted on ever since. ment to which they owed allegiance, and to whose The constitution imposed but two limitations on this laws they paid a willing submission, for which, in return, matter: the one was, that no State should have more rethey were entitled to protection and justice, would no presentatives than one for every 30,000 inhabitants; and, doubt accord to them that justice. It was no matter on the other hand, that every State should be entitled to whether they lived on the margin, or in the centre of the one representative. The effect was that the greatest country; as citizens, they were equally under the protect number of representatives at this time could be no more ing care of the Government. He knew not, he observed, than 397; the smallest, 24. The committee had rewhether it might not be common, in the ordinary mode commended a number which they considered a just meof legislative proceedings, to object to a measure at the dium between these two extremes. It would give a House threshold, with a view to defeat it; but he repeated of such dimensions, that, on the one hand, the people that if those among his constituents who were interested would not be deprived of an adequate representation, in the result of the resolution had individually presented and, on the other, the numbers of members would not be petitions, the House would not have refused to listen to such as to render the House multitudinous, unwieldy, and their complaints. inconvenient. In 1790, the number fixed on as entitled With respect to the remark of the necessity of seriously to a representative had been 30,000; in 1800, 33,000; discussing the resolution, he would ask if there was any in 1810, 35,000; and in 1820, 40,000. The bill now rething, then, in the claims, to lead away the committee to ported proposed 48,000. This was a greater augmenan acknowledgment of their justice. If so, it would tation than had taken place in forty years. Looking to form, with him, an additional reason for investigating the unavoidable inequality of the operation of any ratio them. Mr. C. proceeded in his argument in behalf of the they could propose, the committee had also considered claimants, and went on to describe the condition of the the effect of various ratios in leaving the unrepresented country on the Niagara frontier, which, he said, was from fractions in the different States; and, after maturely consilake to lake, in the interior, from the commencement of the war to December, 1813, committed to the flames. Mr. C. had not concluded when the hour expired. Further debate was cut off by a motion of Mr. POLK, chairman of the committee on the subject of the apportionment of representatives, to take up THE APPORTIONMENT BILL. The House went into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, Mr. HOFFMAN, of New York, in the chair, and took up the bill regulating the apportionment of representatives according to the fifth census. dering and comparing the difficulties, they had come to the conclusion that 48,000 distributed the fractions as equally among the States as any other number which could be fixed upon. The aggregate amount of all the fractions left by this arrangement would be 547,483. The committee had had no criteria from which to judge to what number of members the House would be most likely to assent. There existed a variety of opinions, whose advocates were in favor of a House more or less numerous. If resort should be had to experience, many were of opinion that the number of the existing House was quite large enough, and might very conveniently be continued. He had, himself, at first, agreed in this opinion; but he had subsequently been induced to coincide with a majority of the committee in the opinion that there ought to be some proportion observed between the increase and widespread population of the country, and its representation in that House. The bill was read: [it proposed that one representative be allowed to every 48,000 inhabitants, after the deduction of Indians not taxed, and two-fifths of the slave population; and then went on to declare the number of representatives in each State, on this rule of apportionment.] In introducing the bill, Mr. POLK observed that the committee had felt a great difficulty, and even impossibi- Were all our citizens engaged in similar pursuits, so as lity, of recommending any ratio of representation which to be identified in their interests, a smaller representation should obtain the unanimous assent of the House. The might be proper; but what was their actual condition in representation of the people of the United States in that this respect? To be sure, the greater part of them were House depended, according to the constitution, not on agriculturists; but a very large class were also engaged the total population of the Union, but on the respective in manufacturing pursuits, and others in trade and comnumbers of inhabitants in the several States, excluding mercial enterprise. They inhabited a wide-spread counall Indians not taxed, and, also, two-fifths of the slaves, try, varying in its soil, climate, agricultural productions. and including all other persons. No ratio could be adopted Each part of the country, and every class of this extendwhich would be perfectly equal in its results upon all the ed community, was entitled to representation on that floor. States: whatever number might be fixed on as entitling Ten years ago, two hundred and thirteen members had to a representative on that floor, there must be fractions not been thought too many; it was proposed now to inleft in most of the States, larger in some and smaller in crease that number by the addition of twenty-four more others. This inequality, however it might be regretted, members. Would that give a number too large to rehad its cause in the constitution itself. It had been so present all the people of the United States? In many sensibly felt when the ratio of representation was esta- districts there were, at present, ten, twelve, fifteen, and blished by the first Congress, that they had attempted to even twenty counties wholly unrepresented. One repreremedy it by allowing to such of the States as had very sentative could not be considered as too much for 48,000 large residuary fractions an additional representative. freemen. If, indeed, the population of the entire counThe then President of the United States, General Wash- try were as dense as in some particular portions of the ington, after mature consideration, and after detaining the Union, a larger number of constituents to one represenbill in his hands until the last day allowed for his decision (tative might answer; but in many portions the population upon it, sent it back to Congress with his veto, and the was comparatively sparse. The committee, Mr. P. obreasons of it, which were two, viz. that no common di- served, were not so absurd as to imagine, or he to assert, visor would give to the States the number of representa- that they had hit upon so precise and perfect a medium tives allowed them by the bill; and that the proposed number as that neither more nor fewer could possibly number of representatives was greater than one for every effect the objects sought; such was not their view, but 30,000; and that, therefore, the bill was unconstitutional. he believed they had provided for such a ratio as should The House had acquiesced in this construction, and re- bring the wishes, wants, and will of the people fairly on ported accordingly a new bill, the effect of which was that floor. Ours, he observed, was a popular Govern JAN. 10, 1832.] Apportionment Bill. [H. of R. ment, and such a Government was best preserved by the posed, it would happen that this inconvenience would representatives of the people. The constitution, proceed-press the most heavily on States which before had been the ing on that principle, had entrusted them with large most favored. For example, the State of Massachusetts powers. All money bills must originate in that House; would now have an unrepresented fraction of 34,000 peoevery tax the people had to pay must be voted by their ple; but under a former census she had had but 3,000; own immediate representatives. No appropriation could and on one occasion even less than one thousand. Georbe made of the public money without their consent. They gia, too, would now have a large fraction; but then, under possessed the sole power of impeachment. They had a the last census, she had been the most favored of all the concurrent voice in the question of war and peace. They States. The largest fraction under the present plan would were immediately entrusted with all the concerns and in-fall to the lot of South Carolina. And although this arrangeterests of the great body of the people. It was surely ment might be complained of by those States to whom large proper that the representative should know his constitu- fractions fell, yet it would be found that whatever other ents, and be known by them. There was a natural sympa-number might be adopted, a similar result could not thy between electors and elected. They were the depository be avoided. Mr. P. concluded by expressing the entire of the wishes, wants, and will of the people. The Sena- submission of himself and his colleagues in the committors were representatives of the sovereignties of the States, tee to whatever disposition the House might make of the and were elected for a longer term, but the representa- subject. Mr. TAYLOR, of New York, went at considerable length into the question of order, and argued to sustain the decision of the Chair. Mr. INGERSOLL spoke for some time in support of his appeal. Mr. ROOT, of New York, suggested that it would be best to consider the bill as reported in blank, and thereupon to receive in succession such motions as might be made for filling the blank with the various numbers differ tive came fresh from the people. In turning his atten- Mr. CRAIG, of Virginia, moved to amend the bill by tion to the subject submitted to the committee, he had striking out the words "forty-eight" wherever they ocbecome aware of a fact which he had not before observ-curred, so as to leave the number blank. ed; it was, that at the time of the adoption of the federal This motion gave rise to a debate turning entirely on constitution no fewer than eight of the States had present- questions of order, and which occupied the committee ed as an objection to that instrument their fear that the till three o'clock. The motion was opposed by Mr. INHouse of Representatives would never be suffered to be- GERSOLL, of Connecticut, as being in violation of the come of a sufficient size to give the people their due spirit of the eighteenth rule of order, which declares that weight in the Government; and, in these eight States, a motion to strike out and insert is not divisible. amendments had actually been proposed, with a view to The CHAIR having pronounced the motion to be in guard against such a state of things. The greatest argu-order, Gment he had heard urged in favor of a reduction of the Mr. INGERSOLL took an appeal to the House. number of members in that House was, that a smaller number would conduce more to the despatch of business. He would proceed to examine that argument. The despatch of business, and a due representation of the people, were two very different things. It was very possible that a reduction of numbers would tend to despatch of business. If the House should contain but fifty, or even its minimum number of twenty-four members, it would, no doubt, get through its business in a shorter time. But, in that case, would the people enjoy an adequate repre-ent members might prefer. sentation? In a despotism, or an aristocracy, there was more despatch of business; but those forms of Government were not on that account preferable to a republic. There was not so much in this argument as at first there might appear to be. Whatever the number of members might be, he took it for granted that the great mass of the public business would be done. The annual appropriations for the army, navy, and the civil list, would be male, and the essential interests of the country attended to, by a House of any size within the constitution; and beyond that, he thought a very great amount of legislation by no means desirable. Too much legislation was worse than too little. Another objection he had, indeed, heard, though generally made in a facetious rather than a serious manner; it was, that the dimensions of that Hall were such that it would not contain a larger number. In reply to such an objection, it was sufficient to say that he pre-ported in blank. sumed they were not to consult the architect as to what But the motion was lost without a count. should be the ratio of the people's representation. Mr. McDUFFIE opposed the decision of the Chair. Mr. SPEIGHT called for the reading of certain clauses of the lex parliamentaria; when Mr. INGERSOLL, upon further reflection, concluded to withdraw his appeal." Mr. JARVIS, of Maine, now moved to amend the amendment of Mr. CRAIG, by inserting the words "seventy-five." Mr. WAYNE denied that such a motion could be considered as an amendment to the amendment; but the CHAIR pronounced the amendment in order; when, after some further debate, in which Messrs. GILMORE, WICKLIFFE, WILDE, and WAYNE took part, Mr. WARD, of New York, moved that the committee rise and recommit the bill, with instructions to have it re Mr. THOMAS, of Louisiana, having made some observations in approbation of the course pursued by the chairman, The question was taken on Mr. JARVIS's motion, and The question now recurring on the motion of Mr. CRAIG to strike out the words "forty-eight," Mr. ROOT moved that the bill be considered as reported in blank, and motions thereupon received for filling the blanks. Mr. P. said that the committee would very gladly have escaped from the responsibility of recommending any specific number as a rule of representation; but they had understood the terms of the resolution by which they re-negatived. ceived their appointment to be such as made it their imperative duty. They were not particularly attached to the particular number of 48,000; they had been led to fix on that number, because it would leave the fractions as equal as any other. There was one remark which he had omitted to make in its proper place. The committee were fully aware that the arrangement would be considered as pressing very hardly by those States whose fractions were very large. This had always been a subject of Mr. JENIFER, of Maryland, moved to fill the blank complaint when former apportionments had been un-with the words forty-five. The Chair receiving this motion, der consideration. But, according to the ratio now pro- Mr. CRAIG took an appeal. The CHAIR pronounced this motion out or order. Mr. HUBBARD, of New Hampshire, supported the motion of Mr. CRAIG. H. OF R.] Payment for Lost Property.-Apportionment Bill. [JAN. 11, 1832. The CHAIR explained its reasons for the decision; when ants who had been calling for justice since 1815, year Mr. CRAIG, by advice of his friends, withdrew his appeal. The debate was now resumed with great spirit and animation, and was continued by the following gentleman: Messrs. POLK, DANIEL, ADAMS, WICKLIFFE, CRAIG, TAYLOR, VINTON, and McDUFFIE; when, On motion of Mr. WICKLIFFE, The committee rose, and reported progress. after year, till the present time--was it right, he would ask, to tell them that they came too late? He wished the resolution to be adopted, that their cases might be refer red to a select committee of unprejudiced members, and finally decided on in a spirit of liberal and equal justice. With such a decision of Congress, the party would be satisfied, and their claims ultimately set at rest. Mr. WICKLIFFE moved that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union be discharged from the further consideration of the bill, and that it be recommitted to the committee who had reported it, with in-censure upon him for the introduction of the resolution. structions to report it in blank; but The SPEAKER pronounced such a motion at this time out of order, unless by the unanimous consent of the House. Whereupon, on motion, the House adjourned. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11. Mr. WHITTLESEY, of Ohio, shortly replied. He explained the remarks which had been adverted to by Mr. COOKE, and said he had been greatly misunderstood, indeed, if that gentleman supposed he meant to throw any Far from it; that gentleman, as a member of the House, had a right, and it was his duty, to submit any proposition which he might deem required by the welfare of his constituents, or the interests of his country. He [Mr. W.] had observed that the claimants might prefer their claims by petition, and that the Committee of Claims still acted in such cases on the spirit of the acts of 1816, although the acts had expired. Mr. W. reviewed the course that PAYMENT FOR LOST PROPERTY. had been pursued since the passing of that act, and The House having resumed the resolution offered by maintained that the Government had behaved towards the Mr. COOKE, of New York, that a committee be appointed sufferers by the late war with generosity unparalleled in to inquire into the expediency of making further provi- the history of any Government on earth. In addition to sion for extending and the more effectually carrying into the two hundred and fifty thousand dollars appropriated effect the provisions of the act of Congress entitled "An by the act of 1825, a sum vastly greater in amount had act authorizing the payment for property lost, captured, been distributed by the Committee of Claims. or destroyed, by the enemy, while in the military service what did the resolution propose? An extension of the of the United States, and for other purposes," passed principles of the act of 1816. Would the gentleman 9th April, 1816, and the several amendments thereto, and from New York extend those principles so as to include that said committee have leave to report by bill or other-compensation by the Government for all losses sustained by our citizens from the enemy, when inflicted by them wise- But Mr. COOKE, of New York, resumed his argument in according to the authorized rules of legitimate warfare? support of the adoption of the resolution. He observed Why, in that case, in the event of a city being destroyed that it was not his design to detain the House any great by an enemy, the Government would be called upon to length of time on the subject. He wished that it would pay for every damage sustained by every inhabitant of it. be their pleasure, however, to put themselves in posses- The proposition would be monstrous, and the fulfilment sion of the facts connected with the object of the resolu- of the obligations which it would impose, impracticable. tion, although it was at that time unnecessary to discuss No man would go so far as to defend such a measure. Mr. their merits. For the information of those gentlemen W. expressed his own opinion that a commissioner should who might not have had seats in the House at the time of be established to decide on claims of a nature like those its last action upon it, he would briefly mention what had referred to in the resolution, a mode of disposing of them been done in relation to the claims alluded to. Mr. C. here which he thought far preferable to letting them come into went into a history of the circumstances connected with the House at all. In conclusion, he observed that the the passage of the laws of 1816 and '25, relative to in- bill of 1816 did not emanate from the Military Committee, demnities for property destroyed. The sum of 250,000 but both in the House and the Senate, from the Committee dollars was appropriated for that purpose by the act of of Claims. Mr. COOKE refused to accept the amendment as a modification, and the question was then taken on the amendment, and carried-yeas 71. The resolution, as amended, was then agreed to. APPORTIONMENT BILL. 1825, and of that but about 20,000 dollars was now left Mr. WICKLIFFE objected to so protracted a discusunapplied. From that period there had been no further sion on a mere motion for a committee, and suggested enactments on the subject. He proceeded to review the that it would be better to submit the subject to the Comobjections raised to the adoption of his proposition; and mittee of Claims; and he moved an amendment to that in answer to the remarks of the chairman of the Commit-effect. tee of Claims, [Mr. WHITTLESEY, of Ohio,] that the resolution would lead to the opening of old claims, said that, even if it did, he trusted nothing injurious to the country could result from the reinvestigation of all just claims. If the decision on these claims were right, there was nothing to be feared from approaching them; and if wrong, an opportunity would be afforded them of renMr. POLK now moved that the House proceed to the dering justice to individuals from whom it had been with- consideration of the business on the Speaker's table, and held. Another subject had been urged, that it would the orders of the day; with a view, should the motion break in upon the rules of the department. And what of prevail, to move to go into Committee of the Whole on that? Those rules, he conceived, were under the super- the state of the Union, and take up the apportionment vision of Congress, and, if they were good, would not be bill. altered; if improper, as some of them most certainly Mr. WICKLIFFE observed that it must have been were, or had been, it was time for their revision or aboli- evident to all that there was a strong disposition on ali tion. Again, it had been said that we should open the sides to get clear of the difficulty experienced yesterday statute of limitations. Now, in reply to that, he must in Committee of the Whole, from the apportionment bill say that he did not look upon that House in the light having been reported with a particular number in it, inof a court of common law; and he would repeat that stead of a blank; and he hoped he should get the unanihe knew of no just or equitable limitation in point of mous consent of the House to make the motion that the time of an honest claim. Was it right to say to the claim-Committee of the Whole be discharged from the further JAN. 12, 1832.] Colonizing Free Negroes.-Duties on Imports. consideration of the bill, and the committee who reported it be directed to report it in blank. Mr. BURGES objected, giving as his reason that he was unwilling that the bill be so reported. He, however, withdrew his objection; but it was immediately renewed by Mr. McCoy. Mr. WICKLIFFE then moved for a suspension of the rule, which prevented his now making his motion. Mr. TAYLOR suggested it would be a better mode of getting at the object for the House to negative the motion of the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. POLK.] [H. OF R. against the resolution, but was in favor of the principle contained in it. Mr. JENIFER said that he should have no objection to the proposed postponement, did the resolution contain any principle at all, but it contained none. It was a mere proposal for inquiry; and as some of the Legislatures of the States were now in session, he was very desirous that the House should go into the consideration of the subject in time to act upon it before those Legislatures should rise. Mr. ARCHER said that the objection of the gentleman A discussion on order now took place, when the Chair from North Carolina involved the question whether the pronounced its construction of the rule as lately amended; House could constitutionally inquire at all into such a which was, that if, at the expiration of the hour allotted subject. If the gentleman from Maryland should refuse to the consideration of reports and resolutions, any sub- to acquiesce in the proposed postponement, Mr. A., ject was under consideration or discussion in the House, though reluctant to do so, should be compelled by duty to he should permit the discussion to continue, unless some move to lay the resolution on the table; in which case, the member moved to proceed to the business on the Speak- gentleman would find it a more difficult thing to get his er's table, and the orders of the day; but, should there resolution up again for consideration, than if it had been be no subject before the House when the hour expired, postponed. he should proceed to the business on his table, if any, and to the orders of the day, without any motion to that effect. THURSDAY, JANUARY 12. COLONIZING FREE NEGROES. Mr. JENIFER thereupon agreed to the postponement of his resolution until Monday next. DUTIES ON IMPORTS. Mr. BOULDIN, of Virginia, inquired of the Chair whether it would be in order for him then to state to the House the circumstances under which a resolution offered by him some days since had been laid upon the table. The CHAIR replied that it would not, unless the House should agree to take up the resolution for consider Mr. JENIFER moved the following resolution, viz. Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire into the expediency of making an appropriation for the purpose of removing from the United States, and her ter-ation. ritories, the free people of color, and colonizing them on the coast of Africa, or elsewhere. Mr. BOULDIN thereupon asked that the yeas and nays might be called upon the question of consideration. They were ordered accordingly, and, being taken, stood as follows: In supporting the resolution, Mr. JENIFER observed that the State of Maryland was deeply interested in the subject of the resolution, inasmuch as she possessed a greater YEAS.-Messrs. Adams, Adair, Alexander, Robert actual amount of the population referred to than any other Allen, Anderson, Angel, Appleton, Archer, Armstrong, State in the Union. Virginia, he believed, stood next, Babcock, Noyes Barber, Barnwell, Barstow, Isaac C. in this respect; and Delaware, in proportion to her whole Bates, James Bates, Bell, Bergen, Bethune, James Blair, population, had possibly still more than either. Maryland John Blair, Boon, Bouck, Bouldin, Branch, John Brodfelt severely the evils resulting from the presence of a head, John C. Brodhead, Cambreleng, Carr, Carson, population of this description; and if there existed within Chandler, Chinn, Choate, Claiborne, Clay, Clayton, Coke, the power of the Government a constitutional remedy, Collier, Conner, Craig, Davenport, John Davis, Warren she believed it ought to be applied for her relief. If R. Davis, Dearborn, Doubleday, Drayton, Duncan, Ellsthere was any subject in which that State might be said to worth, George Evans, Edward Everett, Felder, Findlay, feel a more lively interest than in almost any other, it Fitzgerald, Foster, Gaither, Gordon, Griffin, Hammons, was this. It was expedient, and very desirable, that if Harper, Hawes, Hawkins, Hoffman, Holland, Howard, any legislation took place on this subject, it should be had Hubbard, Hunt, Huntington, Ihrie, Irvin, Isacks, Jarvis, at as early a period as possible. The Legislatures of R. M. Johnson, Cave Johnson, C. C. Johnston, Kavanagh, several of the States were now in session, and some of them would be looking to the General Government for its co-operation. If, on deliberation, it should be concluded that there was no provision in the constitution, and no means in the hands of the Government, then the States would have to look to their own resources; and they ought to know this as early as practicable. He had proposed a select committee on this subject, only because there was no standing committee to whom it seemed to belong. Lamar, Lansing, Leavitt, Lecompte, Lewis, Mann, Mardis, NAYS.-Messrs. C. Allan, Allison, Arnold, Banks, Beardsley, Briggs, Bucher, Bullard, Burges, Cahoon, Mr. SPEIGHT said that the subject embraced in the Condict, Condit, E. Cooke, B. Cooke, Cooper, Coulter, resolution was one of great importance, and he wished Crane, Crawford, Creighton, Dayan, Denny, Dewart, the gentleman would consent to defer the reference for a Dickson, Joshua Evans, Horace Everett, Ford, Gilmore, few days. It was one on which he had himself received Grennell, Heister, Hogan, Horn, Hughes, Ingersoll, Jenimany communications from his constituents, and he was fer, Jewett, Kennon, Adam King, John King, Henry desirous that some further time might be allowed him King, Letcher, Lyon, R. McCoy, McKennan, Milligan, before any action of the House was insisted upon. Mr. Muhlenberg, Pearce, Pierson, Pitcher, Potts, Randolph, S. said he was in favor of the policy which dictated the Root, Russel, Southard, Stephens, Sutherland, Philemon resolution, and, could he be satisfied that the General Go-Thomas, Tompkins, Tracy, Vance, Vinton, Wardwell, vernment possessed the power referred to, he should be Washington, Watmough, Wilkin, Wheeler, E. Whittlevery glad to see such a measure adopted. He would sey, F. Whittlesey, E. D. White, Young.-70. suggest to the gentleman from Maryland the expediency So the House agreed to consider the resolution. of postponing the measure until Monday next. He wished And it having been read as follows: the gentleman distinctly to understand that he was not VOL. VIII.-97 Whereas, in certain ports of the United States ad valo |