FEB. 4, 1837.] Committee of Investigation. [H. OF R. something that did not occur at all. I call upon the chairman of the committee, who should be the best witness, to say if these are not the facts. and said, "This is my business, Wise; not yours." And entirely subsided. I suggested that he should be perhe walked straight up to the witness where he sat, and mitted to ask another question or two, and that the comsaid to him nearly these words-I will endeavor to give mittee should discharge the witness before it adjourned; his very words, however harsh: "You talk about my so that Mr. PEYTON might become calm, and not retire shielding myself behind my constitutional privileges. at the same time with the witness. This course was Now, I tell you that I claim no constitutional privileges adopted, and successfully pursued. Whitney came back to protect me from your insults in my presence; and you into the committee room, after he had retired, entirely d—d thief and robber, if you dare to insult me, here humbled, I thought, and answered the next question or elsewhere, to my face, I will put you to death on the propounded in the only becoming manner he exhibited spot!" The chairman had called me to order, and I had at all. Such, sir, is a true statement of the whole transsat down; he immediately called my friend back to his action, and such was the part in it which I bore. I put it seat; for it is but due, Mr. Speaker, to the chairman to the members of the committee to say whether what to say that he has done his duty, in all respects, on that Whitney has published of my conduct on that occasion committee. My friend took his seat, when the witness is correct; whether, with the exception of my first derose, and began to say, “Mr. Chairman, I have been nunciation of his insolence, and of my after expression summoned to appear before this committee, and I claim that he was not worthy of notice, my interposition was its protection"-He did not finish the sentence be- not peaceful. Sir, I acted on the occasion the part of a fore my friend rose, and told him to sit down. "Sit pacificator. He says I approached him with my friend down, sir! you have no right to speak here but in wri to ogle him and frown him down. It is true I did apting, and you shall not utter a word; if you speak another proach him, and eye him, when I suspected his design word, I will"-Sr, I do not remember here exactly to draw a weapon; I stood ready and watchful to protect what he said he would do; he used many harsh epithets, my friend; but I call upon every gentleman on the comsuch as "d-d scoundrel." The witness uttered not mittee, of all parties, friend or foe, to say whether I have a word, but he was standing, and immediately advanced not stated the facts truly. say that no part or parcel, his left foot, and put his right hand in his pantaloons jot or tittle, of the statement of that infamous wretch right pocket. I was standing then immediately behind (Whitney) is true, except the one statement of the quesmy friend, and, seeing Whitney assume this attitude, Ition and answer. He states nothing as it occurred, and walked quickly around the end of the table, near to Whitney's left side. I expected him to draw a deadly weapon on my friend. I watched the motion of that right arm, the elbow of which could be seen by me; and, had it moved one inch, he had died upon the spot! That was my determination. Let me not be misunderstood or misrepresented. I mean to say that, if he had drawn his deadly weapon on my friend, it should never have done its execution. I considered my friend in imminent danger, and stood prepared to arrest it—to prevent his life from being taken by a villain, who wore every appearance and assumed the very attitude of an insidious assassin. Happily I had no occasion to interpose, but in a friendly manner to force my friend away, who had, seeing the position of the witness, put his hand in his bosom. I stepped in between them, took hold of Mr. PEYTON, caught him by his waistcoat, and closed it. I told him Whitney's blood was not worth spilling, and was not fit to stain any man-he was not worthy of his notice. My friend sat down, saying, "Yes, he is worth my notice when he comes to my face and insults me. I would notice any d-d dog!" The chairman expostulated with him, and my friend replied, “You have not seen him, sir; he has been looking at me-looking at me sir; and he shall not look at me again! I submit it to you, sir, whether I have not treated him as if he were a gentleman." The Chair remonstrated against further disorder. Whitney had not uttered a word after he was ordered by my friend to be silent, and did not until after he had retired and returned to the committee room. Mr. HAMER had been speaking; the witness was requested to retire. Mr. HAMER offered the resolution you have heard read; it passed unanimously; witness was called in; the chairman returned him his offensive answer, and informed him of the resolution, and he immediately said: "Mr. Chairman, if I have been disrespectful to the committee, I regret it, sir, and apologize for it." The clerk took down his words immediately, unknown to most of the members, and the committee, afterwards, when Mr. HAMER was about to move to insert the witness's apology, withdrew his motion, because the committee concurred unanimously, I thought, that the clerk had correctly recorded it already. Thus ended the whole affair. I went to the chairman, to Mr. HAMER, Mr. MARTIN, and Mr. FAIRFIELD, all, I think, of the committee, and begged them not to adjourn until my friend's excitement Mr. GARLAND, of Virginia, said that it was extremely unpleasant to him at any time, and under any circumstances, to make a statement in reference to a personal controversy; but, from the various hues, in various directions, which had been given to the transaction referred to by his colleague, [Mr. WISE,] he thought it due to the committee, to the House, and to the country, that a correct statement should be made. Mr. G. said, without expressing any opinion in regard to the "card" referred to, or any other part of the transaction, he would simply say that the statement of the facts and circumstances related by his colleague was substantially correct, and detailed very much as they happened. Some things stated he did not see; others occurred which were omitted, not affecting the substantial correctness of the narrative. Mr. G. said he did not see the scowl and contemptuous look which the gentleman from Tennessee states Mr. Whitney to have given him; his eyes were turned in another direction at the time it is said to have happened; but he distinctly remembers hearing the gentleman from Tennessee complain of it at the time, and as the principal cause of his excitement. Mr. G. sa d the occurrence was very sudden, and the gentleman from Tennessee was certainly very much excited. He said that, with a view to restore quiet, he stated to Mr. Whitney that a question would arise as to the disposition of his answer, and that he must retire; which he did. After Mr. Whitney had left the room, Mr. PEYTON became more tranquil, apologized to the committee, and stated that he had been very much excited on account of the insult which he regarded as having been given him in the answer of Mr. Whitney, and the scowl and contemptuous look with which it was accompanied. Mr. Whitney was then called in, and the resolution of the committee in reference to his answer read to him; he then apologized to the committee in the terms contained in the copy of the journal of the committee just read. Mr. GILLET said he rose to make but a few suggestions. The situation in which he stood, as a member of the select committee, required him to make a few remarks, lest his silence should be misconstrued. It would be obvious to all who frequently attend our courts of justice, that it is hardly possible for nine persons to wit ness a transaction, and all concur in giving their testimony concerning it, though all might be equally and perfectly honest. Each would remember the part that made the strongest impression on his mind-one would pay more attention to the words spoken, while another would particularly note the gestures. He much doubt. ed whether, if each member of the committee should retire to his room, and write out what he recollected of the transaction in the committee room, any two would be found to agree upon the order and details of it. It would not be strange if they differed as much in their accounts as Mr. Whitney differed in his with either gentle. man who had spoken on this subject. This disagreement of persons in their accounts of what had transpired was perfectly reconcilable with honest intentions; consequently, he should not impeach the character of members of the committee, or of the witness who was before them, if all did not concur in the order and details of what had transpired. Unless we can agree among ourselves as to that occurrence, we could not, with any propriety, condemn one who differed no more from us than we among ourselves. He had just come in from the committee room, and did not understand how this discussion arose, nor the precise object that was in view. He presumed it was intended to put the House and country in possession of an accurate and true account of what occurred between Mr. PEYTON and Mr. Whitney. As so many jarring accounts had gone forth, such a desire is not without reason in its favor. He had not heard the accounts given by those who preceded him, and hence he could not say whether those accounts were in accordance with his own recollection or not. It was no part of his purpose to express an opinion at this time of the correctness of the statements of others, and certainly none in relation to statements which he had heard only in part. Nor would he now express any opinion concerning the card of Mr. Whitney. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. WISE] had a day or two ago given notice to the committee that, when the report should be made to the House, as he understood him, he should bring up the subject of that card, and should deny the truth of all, except the copies of the question and answer. At that time, and not at the present, be expected this matter would come up as a subject of discussion. He thought the committee had not generally expected it to come up to-day, and he believed they were not generally in; but if they were, he strongly doubted the propriety of members rising in their places and making verbal reports of what they recollected. He thought it better that the committee should agree among themselves, as far as they were capable of doing so, as to what had transpired, and present it in a tangible and definite shape, so that it would command credence wherever it went. When the committee shall agree, the country will feel an assurance that they have arrived at the truth. If we cannot agree upon the facts, how, sir, are those who report what we now say to agree? Will every reporter and letter-writer give the same account of what we affirm in the matter? He thought he hazarded nothing in saying, not two of all these would agree. It will be the same with others who hear what we now say. Nay, sir, before we leave this House a difference of recollection will be found to prevail as to what we have said. By to-morrow we shall find a very wide difference in this respect. As the news of the debate spreads, these differences will multiply in proportion to the distance they travel, and all will remain in uncertainty. Newspaper readers will fall into the errors of the publishers, and while one part of the community will believe one account, other portions may equally believe others, and all wide from the truth. From these, among other considerations, he thought this manner of [FEB. 4, 1837. placing this matter before the public was highly excep. tionable. He had entirely abstained from stating one word of what did occur, as he recollected it. Before he sat down, he should propose a resolution in these words: Resolved, That the select committee, of which the honorable JAMES GARLAND is chairman, be directed to report to this House the facts in relation to the difficulty that occurred between Mr. PEYTON, a member of that committee, and Mr. Whitney, a witness called before that committee, while said witness was under examination. He did not know that the House was desirous of becoming acquainted with the occurrence referred to; but if it was, he thought this would be a suitable and proper manner of obtaining the facts. The narrative given by the witness had been, he understood from those who had listened to gentlemen who preceded him, objected to as inaccurate or untrue. If the committee be required to report the facts, the correctness of this statement would be tested. This would be doing justice to its author and to the objectors. Then the public mind, which is feverish with continued excitement on questions of a disputed character, would be tranquillized and settled on one at least. Continual talking on the subject would no more settle this question than it had settled those which the committee were ordered to in. quire about. True, the committee cannot, perhaps, report the intentions of those who were the principal actors in the scene. He had understood these intentions, in whole or in part, had been already communicated to the House. He presumed those who had gone largely into details did not intentionally give more than what was recollected; and he would say that he had not yet heard it alleged by any one that Mr. Whitney's account had been amplified beyond the truth, except in a single word in the relation of what he said after he returned to the committee. He should not express any personal wish as to the disposition of this matter. importance entitled it to the consideration of the House, he thought the same reasons would impel us to seek the undisputed truth, and place it before the public; and by that let those who have made statements be judged. If its This endorsing or denying the allegations of others was what he did not intend to do. The matter affirmed to be true or untrue might be misreported, and the affirmation be made to cover statements never intended to be vouched for or denied. From differences in recollection new controversies might arise, giving birth to feelings not to be designedly promoted by this House, and not productive of good any where. Thus far, he understood, the statements of facts had been mingled with much other matter not well calculated to enable others to understand them. If the committee should report the facts, they would not be interspersed with biting and criminating epithets heaped upon the witness, having nothing to do with what transpired in the committee room. He thought the true way of arriving at the truth was to call for it in an authentic form, and then the House could judge where the blame ought to rest. This he thought due to all parties, and could not fairly be objected to by any one. He therefore would send to the Speaker the resolution which he had read, and ask the House to adopt it. [This motion, the reception of it being objected to, was not in order at this time.] Mr. WISE then again rose to conclude his remarks, which he had not finished before Mr. GILLET rose. He said: Sir, in continuation of my statement, I have to remark that my friend from Tennessee is pardonable for much he said and did on that occasion. He spoke many harsh words, but under the strongest excitement. We both looked upon Reuben M. Whitney as a base minion of executive power, who went there with a predetermination to insult us. He came, backed and endorsed, and prompted by the highest authority, to brow. beat and taunt us, and to trample upon the power of a committee constitutionally raised by the representatives of the people to detect and expose his villanous connexion with the executive branch of the Government. My friend regarded the wretch as a mere agent, a miserable tool of others-others the highest in power. It was too much, sir, to suffer his authorized insults. My friend did not treat him as an equal; but he was transported with passion at his insolence and effrontery. He did and said many things which became not himself, but which Whitney richly deserved. As soon as he became calm and cool, he apologized to the committee in the most respectful terms. The gentleman from New York [Mr. GILLET] says that “many things which Whitney says are true." I repeat, sir, that no part or parcel, jot or tittle, of his statement, except the question and answer, is true; it is wholly false in matter and manner; in fact, and coloring, and context-emphatically false false in italics! His statement as to his apology when he returned to the committee, I venture to say, no member of the committee will vouch; and that he makes especially a marked statement by words in italics. In this he is wilfully and brazenly false; and no member on the committee can endorse his statement. The gentleman from New York [Mr. GILLET] says he will not undertake here to make a statement. Sir, I care not whether he does or not. I have my statement confirmed by my honorable colleague, [Mr. GARLAND,] and that is all I want. It may be, sirI do not say it is so-but it may be likely, that some gentleman who was present so lost his wits on the occasion that he could not make a statement if he were to try! Now, it is proposed to couple the name of my friend in a resolution with that of R. M. Whitney. I hope, sir, the House will not so degrade my friend, by the association even of names. What! couple the name of a villain, pensioned for his perjury, with the name of BALIE PEYTON, in the same resolution! Sir, if you had been present and witnessed the scene of that night, you would have been struck with the immense difference be. tween the two men. I will tell you what you would have seen: you would have seen the high elevation of an honest, bold, courageous, manly, noble disposition, above a low, base, cowering, cowardly, dishonest wretch! That, sir, was the only spectacle you would have seen. And I say, sir, let those of the two classes of spirits then present be respectively consorted together and assimilated to each other! Mr. HAMER (a member of the committee) said that he should not detain the House with any remarks of his, were it not for an observation that fell from the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. PEYTON,] and had been repeated by the gentleman from Virginia who last occupied the floor, [Mr. WISE.] They had stated that the gentleman from Virginia had notified the members of the committee, that when this subject came before the House, he would call upon them to pronounce Mr. Whitney's card false in every part, except so much as related to the proceedings of the committee. If he (Mr. H.) now remained silent, after what had occurred, it might be inferred that he had borne testimony to the falsehood so charged. He did not intend that any such inference should be drawn. He agreed with the gentleman from New York, [Mr. GILLET,] that no nine individuals who might be present at an affair of this kind could be found, who would afterwards state all the details alike; and at this time he would not go into details. As to Mr. Whitney's "card," he would neither pronounce it true nor false. He had, as he stated in conversation with the gentleman from Virginia the other day, read it but hastily, when it [H. OF R. first appeared; and he had not taken the trouble to look at it since. But, as he was up, he would say that, with out going into particulars, the outlines of the transaction, as given by the gentleman from Tennessee and the gentleman from Virginia, were substantially correct. He thought it due to himself to state what had been his own course in the matter. When the excitement took place, and the honorable chairman called "order," he (Mr. H.) rose and commenced making a speech, the object of which was to aid the chairman in producing order out of disorder. He had continued upon the floor, occasionally interrupted by other gentlemen, until he closed his remarks by submitting the resolution which was unanimously adopted by the committee. He thought the resolution due to the committee, due to the individual member involved, and due to the witness himself, who had in some measure provoked what followed. His (Mr. H's) opinion was, that a witness called before a committee, having an interrogatory propounded to him, ought either to answer or to decline. If he declined answering a question, that was enough. He had no right to proceed further, and make remarks about the committee, or an individual member of it, which were of a personal character, or which reflected upon them in any manner disrespectfully. Such a practice could not be tolerated, and the committee were unanimously of that opinion. After this sudden gust of passion, this momentary excitement, the gentleman from Tennessee expressed his regret, and apologized to the committee for what had taken place on his part. The witness was called back, and apologized to the committee for any thing he had done of a disrespectful character. He (Mr. H.) had hoped the whole matter would have remained there; but it seemed that by some means it had got out, and was travelling through the country in the newspapers. False and exaggerated statements, in regard to it, were no doubt circulated in public journals; and although he deprecated all discussions of this sort, yet he thought the gentleman from Tennessee perfectly justifiable in bringing the subject before the House, for the purpose of making a statement in his own defence. Having said thus much, he would trouble the House no further. The House then adjourned.` MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. A message was received from the Senate, informing the House of its concurrence in the report of the joint committee appointed to consider and report upon the mode of counting out the votes for President and Vice President of the United States. Mr. THOMAS moved that the House concur with the Senate in the report and resolutions thereto appended, as reported by him to this House on Saturday evening, as follows: "The committee on the part of the House of Representatives, appointed to join such committee as might be appointed on the part of the Senate, to ascertain and report a mode of examining the votes for President and Vice President of the United States; of notifying the persons elected of their election; and also to inquire into the expediency of ascertaining whether any votes were given at the recent election contrary to the prohibition contained in the second section of the second article of the constitution; and, if any such votes were given, what ought to be done with them; and whether any and what provision ought to be made for securing the faithful observance in future of that section of the constitution,' report: "That the short period at which they were appointed before the day on which the votes for President and Vice President of the United States have to be counted, has prevented them from investigating the facts submit ted to their examination as fully as might have been done, had more time been allowed. The corsespondence which has taken place between the chairman of the committee and the heads of the different departments of the executive branch of the Government accompanies this report, from which it appears that Isaac Waldron, who was an elector in New Hampshire, was, at the time of his appointment as elector, president of a deposite bank at Portsmouth, and was appointed and acting as pension agent, without compensation, under the authority of the United States; that, in two cases, persons of the same names with the individuals who were appointed and voted as electors in the State of North Carolina, held the offices of deputy postmasters under the General Government. It also appears that in New Hampshire there is one case; in Connecticut there is one case; in North Carolina there is one case; in which, from the report of the Postmaster General, it is probable that, at the time of the appointment of electors in these States, respectively, the electors, or persons of the same names, were deputy postmasters. The committee have not ascertained whether the electors are the same individuals who held, or are presumed to have held, the offices of deputy postmasters at the time when the appointment of electors was made; and this is the less to be regretted, as it is confidently believed that no change in the result of the election of either the President or Vice President would be effected by the ascertainment of the fact in either way, as five or six votes only would in any event be abstracted from the whole number; for the committee cannot adopt the opinion entertained by some, that a single illegal vote would vitiate the whole electoral vote of the college of electors in which it was given, particu. larly in cases where the vote of the whole college has been given for the same persons. "The committee are of opinion that the second section of the second article of the constitution, which declares that no Senator, or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector,' ought to be carried in its whole spirit into rigid execution, in order to prevent officers of the General Government from bringing their official power to influence the elections of President and Vice President of the United States. This provision of the constitution, it is believed, excludes and disqualifies deputy postmasters from the appointment of electors; and the disqualification relates to the time of the ap pointments; and that a resignation of the office of deputy postmaster, after his appointment as elector, would not entitle him to vote as elector under the constitution. "Should a case occur in which it became necessary to ascertain and determine upon the qualifications of electors of President and Vice President of the United States, the important question would be presented-what tribunal would, under the constitution, be competent to decide? Whether the respective colleges of electors in the different States should decide upon the qualifications of their own members, or Congress should exercise the power, is a question which the committee are of opinion ought to be settled by a permanent provision upon the subject. "The committee at present, and in part, report the following resolutions: "Resolved, That the two Houses shall assemble in the chamber of the House of Representatives on Wednesday next at 12 o'clock, and the President of the Senate shall be the presiding officer; that one person be appointed a teller on the part of the Senate, and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to make a list of the [FEB. 6, 1837. votes as they shall be declared; that the result shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall announce the state of the vote, and the persons elected, to the two Houses assembled as aforesaid, which shall be deemed a declaration of the persons elected President and Vice President of the United States; and, together with a list of votes, be entered on the journals of the two Houses. "Resolved, That, in relation to the votes of Michigan, if the counting or omitting to count them shall not essentially change the result of the election, they shall be reported by the President of the Senate in the following manner: Were the votes of Michigan to be counted, the result would be, for A B for President of the United States, votes; if not counted, for A B for President of the United States, votes; but, in either event, A B is elected President of the United States. And in the same manner for Vice President." Mr. MERCER was understood to make an inquiry of the chairman [Mr. THOMAS] in relation to the fact, whether any votes have been given by persons not competent, under the constitution of the United States, to vote as electors of President and Vice President. Mr. THOMAS said a few words in explanation. The committee, on investigation, had found that there were three individuals in North Carolina, one in New Hampshire, and one in Connecticut, elected to the electoral college, who bore the same name with those of individuals who were deputy postmasters under the General Government; and the impression on the minds of the committee was, that they were consequently the same individuals. The committee, he said, came to the conclusion that, whether these votes were counted or not, the general result would not be affected, and they did not feel themselves authorized to recommend their rejection. The chief reason was, that it would be a very delicate power, to be exercised on the part of Congress, to determine upon the qualification of electors of President and Vice President of the United States. It was with the committee, also, a matter of considerable doubt whether, if such an inquiry should be gone into, it did not belong to the electoral college itself to judge of the qualifications of its own members. The committee, however, had expressed a very decided disapprobation of any officer of the General Government participating, in the manner these gentlemen had done, in the election of President and Vice President of the United States; and they had proposed a remedy, by either giving the power to reject to the college or to Congress, as might be deemed most expedient. Mr. CAMBRELENG stated, in addition, what had been omitted by the gentleman from Maryland, that it appeared, from examining the list of reappointments of deputy postmasters, that the gentlemen referred to had probably all resigned before they gave in their votes for President and Vice President. Mr. THOMAS had not adverted to that fact, because the committee came unanimously to the conclusion that they were not eligible at the time they were elected, and therefore the whole proceeding was vitiated ab initio. Mr. CRARY called for a division of the question. He was disposed to vote for the first clause of the resolution, but not for that part which made a disposition of the electoral votes of the State of Michigan. He thought that Michigan ought to be placed on an equal footing with the original States. The resolution made a distinction in the votes unfavorable, and, as he conceived, unjust, to his own State. Michigan was now a sovereign State of the Union, and, if the election of President should come before the House, she would be entitled to a vote in her sovereign character. f C FEB. 6, 1837.] Colonization Society-Abolition of Slavery. When Indiana was in an analogous position, her elec. toral votes were received and counted. It was true that the votes of Missouri, in 1821, were placed in the same position that those of Michigan now are; but on the ground solely that Missouri was not a State of the Union at the time the electoral votes of the States were counted. Michigan was now in the Union, and Congress ought not to place her votes in a position so equivocal as they were found in the resolution before us. They were not rejected by it, nor were they received. thought they ought to be received, and to enable him to express that opinion be had moved a division of the question. He The resolutions were then severally concurred in without a division. COLONIZATION SOCIETY. The House then proceeded to the unfinished business, being the petition presented on Monday last, from citizens of the State of Kentucky, praying liberal pecuniary aid from Congress in favor of the objects of the Colonization Society. The sad petition had been referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs; and the question now pending was the motion beretofore submitted by Mr. ADAMS, to reconsider the note by which the petition had been referred to the said committee. . Mr. HUNTSMAN moved the previous question, but withdrew the motion at the suggestion of Mr. CALHOON, on his promise to renew the same. Mr. C. said he felt it due to the individuals whose names were attached to the petition to say, from his own knowledge, that they were gentlemen of the first respectability, and he was sure that not a single man amongst them could be charged with abolition. He did Rot think that, in his whole congressional district in the State of Kentucky, there was a single abolitionist. If there was, he (Mr. C.) did not know him. For himself, he did not think that there was any connexion between the Colonization Society and the abolition of slavery. He should be gratified that the memorial should be referred. And he would now, according to promise, renew the call for the previous question. Mr. PATTON moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table. Mr. ADAMS asked of the candor of the House to permit him to say a few words. The SPEAKER said that neither the call for the previous question nor the motion to lay on the table could be debated. After some desultory conversation as to the effect of the motion to lay on the table the motion to reconsider, in which Messrs. PATTON, DENNY, MERCER, ADAMS, and PINCKNEY, participated, The question on the motion to lay the motion to reconsider on the table was taken, and decided in the afArmative: Yeas 121, nays not counted. So the motion to reconsider was laid on the table. A similar petition, presented on Monday last, came up as the unfinished business, on the motion to refer The same to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. On motion of Mr. JARVIS, the whole subject was laid on the table. ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. Petitions and memorials being called for in the order of States and Territories, Mr. CUSHING said he was charged with a commission of some delicacy, respecting which he craved the indulgence of the House. It happened that in his district the fair sex greatly outnumbered the other, and the better half of creation was no half at all; it was two thirds; so that he was probably the immediate representative of more ladies than any other member of the VOL. XIII-100 [H. of R. House. In obedience to the wishes of his fair constituents, whom it was at all times his pleasure to serve, he had to present petitions praying for the abolition of slavery and the slave trade in the District of Columbia, from 3,824 ladies of the city of Lowell and the towns of Amesbury, Andover, Haverhill, Newburyport, Reading, and Salisbury, in the State of Massachusetts. These petitions were accordingly received and laid on the table, without debate or commitment, under the res. olution of the House. Mr. CUSHING said he had now to beg pardon of the gentleman from New Hampshire, his nearest neighbor at home, [Mr. CUSHMAN,] for appearing to interfere in any way with that gentleman's concerns. He (Mr. CUSHING) was not aware that the ladies of New Hampshire had any general objection to the propounding of the previous question; but, on this occasion, they had distinguished him with their preference, so far as to desire to make him their organ in their communications to the House. Mr. CUSHMAN signified his acquiescence, and Mr. CUSHING proceeded to present petitions from the ladies of Alstead, Bedford, Boscawen, Canaan, Concord, Durham, Franconia, Gilmanton, Groton, Hampton Falls, Hanover, Haverhill, Hebron, Henniker, Hillsborough, Keene, Lancaster, Lincoln, Lyndeborough, Madbury, Mount Vernon, New Hampton, New Market, Orange, Raymond, Salem, and Salisbury, all in the State of New Hampshire, praying for the abolition of slavery and the slave trade in the District of Columbia; which petitions were severally received and laid on the table, under the resolution of the House. Mr. ADAMS having presented certain petitions from other States than that of which he is a representative, Mr. ROBERTSON raised the question of order, whether one member had a right to present petitions from other citizens than those of his own State. The SPEAKER said it had been the uniform practice of the House that a member might present petitions from any State in the Union, provided those petitions were bona fide sent to him for presentation by the citizens interested in them. If one member were to transfer his petitions to another for presentation, the question would then come up in a different form. Mr. ROBERTSON appealed from the decision, but withdrew the appeal. And Mr. ADAMS having proceeded to present a petition from certain inhabitants of New Hampshire, Mr. BOON renewed the point of order; and The SPEAKER having repeated his decision, Mr. BOON took an appeal therefrom. The appeal was debated by Messrs. BOON, HARDIN, MERCER, VINTON, LANE, and VANDERPOEL; when, to save time, Mr. BOON withdrew the appeal. Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kentucky, renewed it. Mr. PATTERSON demanded the previous question. Mr. GLASCOCK asked the gentleman from Ohio to withdraw the motion, on a promise to renew it, so as to enable him (Mr. G.) to submit a remark. Mr. PATTERSON did not withdraw it; and the House seconded the demand for the previous question. Mr. GLASCOCK called for the yeas and nays on ordering the main question; which were refused. And the main question was ordered to be now taken. Mr. DAVIS called for the yeas and nays on the main question; which were ordered. And the main question, "Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?" was taken, and decided in the affirmative: Yeas 139, nays 29. So the House affirmed the decision of the Chair. Mr. ADAMS said he wished the House to recollect that more time, thrice told, had been consumed in debating this appeal than he had taken up, or should take |