amined as to the truth of the excuse; if a good one, there is an end of the whole proceeding, and the accused is instantly discharged. There can be no necessity for a committee to report rules of proceeding. Let us come at it, at once, by permitting the defendant to call witnesses to the bar of the House, to prove the truth of his excuse. Sir, (said Mr. L.,) if one half the defendant has stated be true, in relation to what took place before the committee, to his mind, the said R. M. Whitney, the defendant, would not only stand blameless before this House and the nation, but in all things justified. That he held obedience and protection go together; the one withheld, and the other ceases. That he held no one ought to be called upon to appear before a hostile and armed tribunal. Mr. CALHOON, of Kentucky, said he had but a word or two to offer. It seemed to him that when the two propositions were gravely considered, there could be no difficulty in the minds of gentlemen as to which ought to be adopted. What were the facts? Mr. Whitney had been brought to that House upon a resolution charging him, or rather which requir. ed him to answer in regard to an alleged contempt committed by him against that House: in the first place, in failing to appear before one of its committees, when summoned for that purpose; and, in the second place, in regard to a letter written by him to the committee, which is supposed to contain an insult. Well, he had been brought to the bar of the House; and what was then further proposed to be done? It was proposed by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. LINCOLN] that a committee should be appointed to inquire into the mode proper for the House to pursue in regard to the investigation of these facts. The other proposition of the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. GHOLSON] proposed that they should proceed at once to the examination of witnesses. Now, upon what subject did the gentleman propose to hear witnesses? Mr. Whitney had sent to the House a letter, which Mr. C. had not heard read, but which he understood to contain charges against members of another committee, and that he was unwilling to go before the committee which had summoned him unless the House would pass an order that the members of that committee should not be armed. He states that he is unwilling to go before that committee unless the House pass such an order, but that he was willing to go before a magistrate, and there swear his answers to such interrogatories as the committee may file. Now, suppose the last gentleman's [Mr. GHOLSON's] proposition should be adopted, where would the inquiries extend? Would they not extend directly to the fact as to whether this committee should be armed or not? And as to whether this committee was a safe tribunal for a witness to appear before? Mr. C. would ask whether such an offer was not, of itself, an insult to the American Congress' What! was it a proper subject of inquiry, whether the Speaker of that House had constituted a committee that met armed to the teeth? Surely the gentlemen did not mean to institute such an inquiry as 'that! Again: should the proposition of the gentleman be adopted, might it not happen that, instead of inquiring into the alleged contempt committed by Mr. Whitney, they would be drawn off into an investigation of the scene that took place before another committee? And that, in fact, instead of going on with the inquiry against Mr. Whitney, it would result in an inquiry into the conduct of members of that House, not in the committee before which he was summoned to appear, but before another committee? For these and other reasons, Mr. C. was in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from Massa chusetts. [FEB. 13, 1837. Mr. GHOLSON would answer the gentleman by telling him what his object was in offering his resolution. He had understood this whole proceeding against Mr. Whitney to have grown out of his refusal to appear be fore the committee; for which refusal he (the witness) had assigned certain reasons, then before the House. Now, Mr. G's object was to have witnesses examined to inquire, on the part of the House, into the truth of the facts or statements set forth by Whitney to the House, and given by him as his reasons for refusing to obey the summons of the committee. If the House should think the reasons good, why, discharge him. If the House should be of opinion, however, that the reasons were insufficient, why, they would not discharge him. This was the quickest, readiest, and most simple way of reaching the point. Moreover, Mr. G. was as willing that the conduct of a member of that House should be inquired into as that of any other American citizen. Mr. CALHOON should not be disposed to go into an inquiry as to the truth or falsehood of any statement which this witness had made. He considered that it was not a proper course to go into an investigation of the conduct of members of the select committee. The proper course, he thought, would be to appoint a committee, whose duty it should be to report a mode of proceeding before the House. But if gentlemen saw proper to inquire into the conduct of members of that House-into their object in certain transactions, and into the object of the Speaker in appointing members of that House on committees, who were not proper persons for witnesses to appear before-he had no objection to it. do so. Mr. HARDIN would vote for the original resolution and against the amendment. He had been trying to bring himself to support the amendment, but could not On last Friday, after a lengthy debate, they had directed the Speaker to issue his warrant to take that individual into custody, and bring him before the bar of the House; and Mr. H. thought that was the identical place to hear him. This witness now proposed giving his reasons why he had not appeared before the com mittee; and why not hear him? Gentlemen had urged upon the House the necessity of sending this subject back to a committee. Well, suppose it was sent to a committee, the witness would have to appear before that committee; and how could he appear before a committee when he was in the custody of the Sergeant-atarms? Mr. LINCOLN explained that he had merely brought this subject to the consideration of the House, and that he had no personal feelings on the matter. Mr. MANN, of New York, did not mean to insinuate that the gentleman from Massachusetts had been operated upon by any sinister motives. Mr. BELL presumed it was the intention of every gentleman to have this question put in such a situation as to despatch it as speedily as it could possibly be done, with justice to the individual who had been brought to the bar of the House, and to the House itself. The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. GHOLSON] proposed immediately to proceed to the examination of witnesses; but that gentleman must see that the proposition of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. LINCOLN] would not interfere with his proposition. Mr. B. wished to im press upon the House the importance, in an economical point of view, of adopting the proposition of the gentle. man from Massachusetts, as the House could proceed with infinitely greater despatch in this way than any other. As he understood the proposition of that gen. tleman, the committee proposed to be raised could at once determine on the mode of proceeding without a delay of ten minutes, and then the House would be prepared to proceed regularly with the examination of wit nesses. It would be observed, by the statement of the witness himself, that the whole difficulty had grown out of the fears he entertained of violence being committed upon him by the chairman of the committee. As soon as a committee should be instituted, and the mode of proceeding determined on, Mr. B. would propose to take a step to terminate all this difficulty, which would be to examine Mr. Whitney at the bar of the House; and, if he would state that he was really in fear of violence from the chairman of this select committee, then Mr. B. would move that the Speaker direct the Sergeant-at-arms to attend him, and protect him from violence. Mr. B. understood this to have been the reason of the witness, that he would have attended before the committee but for fear of violence; and, in that case, he thought it was the duty of the House to protect a witness; and if he would state on oath that this was the reason he had failed to appear before the committee, Mr. B. would consider it the duty of the House to protect him. He hoped the resolution of the gentleman from Massachusetts would be adopted. Mr. MANN, of New York, then moved to amend Mr. GHOLSON's resolution, by adding to the end thereof the following: "And that a committee of five be appointed by the Speaker, to examine such witnesses on the part of the House." Mr. GHOLSON accepted the modification. Mr. LINCOLN's amendment was then disagreed to. The question then recurring on the original resolu. tion, Mr. BOON reminded the House that, when this subject was under consideration on Friday las', he had predicted the difficulties that would arise. He was now happy to find that some gentlemen at least had changed their opinion since the vote they gave that Reuben M. Whitney should be brought there. Now, would this result, as some gentlemen had intimated and designed, in that individual's being reprimanded by the Speaker? At least it had not yet become matter of record; no, nor even reduced to a certainty that it ever would be. If a law were in existence, or should be passed, defining the nature of contempts, he (Mr. B.) would go to arrest any individual guilty of them, be he whom he might. Till such a law should be passed, he, however, would never give his vote to bring any man before that House for contempt. The CHAIR reminded the gentleman from Indiana that the proposition then pending did not open the whole merits of the question. Mr. BOON said he would submit one that should open the whole merits; and he sent it to the Clerk's table to be read, as follows: Strike out all after the word "Resolved," and insert, "That Reuben M. Whitney, now at the bar of this House, be forthwith discharged from the custody of the Sergeant-at-arms." [II. of R. sacrifice of all the business of the country, any further. The prisoner at the bar had told them that he wished to be heard by counsel, and it was understood out of doors that he had selected two of the most distinguished gentlemen in the country as his counsel; and if they were to be heard at length, as they assuredly will if the House entered upon the subject, then this question would not be settled in six solemn days; for the counsel would occupy at least two, and each of the committee to be appointed will probably speak, and then the balance, or a certain proportion of the two hundred and forty Representatives, would take that opportunity, also, to maintain their rights there. The truth was, he feared that the residue of the session would be consumed by it. After some further remarks, Mr. B. concluded by moving the substitute above. Mr. ANTHONY said he had voted against the resolu tion of the gentleman from Massachusetts, to bring Reuben M. Whitney before the House, for an alleged contempt in refusing to appear before the committee of which an honorable member from Virginia is the chairman; and he had done so because he did not wish, at this late stage of the session, when so much important business remained to be acted on, to go into an examination of the embarrassing and difficult question of an alleged contempt of the House, by refusing to appear before one of its committees; but, as a majority of the House had determined to bring the accused before them, he cheerfully submitted to their decision. Whether the accused had acted contemptuously, and how far his conduct was reprehensible, if at all, depended upon the facts which would be elicited from the examination of witnesses; and he was therefore opposed, at present, to the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana, which directed the accused to be discharged from the custody of the Sergeant-at-arms, and would go for the resolution of the member from Mississippi, and ascertain satisfactorily such facts as would enable the House to judge correctly of the conduct of the accused, and to determine whether he is excusable or not in his refusal to appear before the select committee. Mr. A. said they could not shut their eyes to what had transpired in another committee; and that the present chairman of the select committee, before which the accused refuses to appear, was one of the members of the former committee, in which a difficulty arose between a friend of the present chairman [Mr. WISE] and the accused and on that occasion the honorable member from Virginia stated to this House that "the witness had his right hand in his pantaloons pocket; that he expected him to draw a deadly weapon on his friend; that he watched the motion of that right arm, the elbow of which could be seen by him, and, had it moved one inch, he (Whitney) had died upon the spot; that was his determination." He would like to know, from the witnesses who might be examined, all the facts in relation to this matter, so Mr. B. hoped, he said, when the proper time arrived, that the House might determine whether Mr. Whitney the yeas and nays would be taken on this proposition. had any apprehension of being assaulted, or had any fear Notwithstanding the remark of the distinguished gentle-operating on his mind, sufficient to excuse him from apman from New York, [Mr. MANN,] that he considered the pitiful appropriation bills for the support of the Government as nothing compared with the settlement of this question, Mr. B. must be allowed to say that, when the subject before the House was compared with the great general interests of the country, the case of Reuben M. Whitney and the select committee in the room below sunk into utter insignificance. Why, there was one single question, in which the Western country was interested, (the land bill,) that was paramount to a hundred Reuben Whitney cases of this kind; nay, more, he would say a thousand. Mr. B. saw no necessity for detaining the House, at the pearing before the committee; he would also be able to judge, from the testimony, whether there was any good and sufficient ground for apprehension of danger on the part of the witness. If he placed himself in such a situation as to be exposed "to die on the spot," if he firmly believed his life was in danger, or if he really supposed that he subjected himself to personal injury, Mr. A. said he would never vote to bring him before that committee; but if, on the contrary, it was a mere idle, vague, and unauthorized fear, and there was no just ground of apprehension, in such case the witness should be compelled to appear to give evidence. Our laws have respect to the intention of those who violate them, and they never pun ish for crime or contempt, unless there is an intentional violation. By our Post Office laws, robbery of the mail, where the life of the carrier is put in jeopardy, is punishable with death; but if the carrier's life is not put in jeopardy, the punishment is only fine and imprisonment. In the case before us, after obtaining the evidence, we shall be able to determine whether the life of Mr. Whitney was in jeopardy; or, if not, whether he solemnly believes, by going before the committee, he subjects himself to personal injury. When gentlemen talk of the indignity offered to the House, by the refusal of a witness to appear before one of its committees, and exclaim that there would be an end of all investigation if such conduct is tolerated, they only look at one side of this disagreeable question. While he admitted that all judicial and legislative tribunals are bound, in honor, to assert and maintain their rights and privileges, and to enforce obedience to all their lawful mandates, yet they are equally bound, by every principle of justice and equity, to protect and shield every witness that comes before them from the least personal danger, from the slightest apprehension for his safety and perfect security. Can it be imagined for a moment that a witness would tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, when his mind is agitated by fear, and when he is under compulsion and restraint? What reliance could be placed on testimony obtained from one who considers himself in danger from those before whom he is giving evidence? It would be much better to let him go before a magistrate, and answer such interrogatories as might be propounded to him; and the testimony thus taken would have much more effect in producing conviction. Every individual has the natural right to protect himself from insult and injury. His life, his body, health and reputation, are peculiarly within his own protection; and no tribunal should have the power to violate these natural indefeisible rights; and no man should be compelled to appear before any tribunal when he was placed in jeopar dy of life or limb. If, on investigation, it should be found that Mr. Whitney had no reasonable ground to apprehend injury, then the House could adopt such course as would vindicate its privileges and assert its rights; but if it should turn out that he had good cause to withhold obedience to the summons of the committee, then he would vote to discharge him from custody. In the answer of the accused to the summons of the committee, he expresses himself as perfectly willing to answer interrogatories before a magistrate, or to appear and answer before the committee, if they prevent the carrying of dangerous weapons in the committee room. This Mr. A. considered a reasonable request, from what had transpired, as the witness could as fully answer in this mode as if he were in the presence of the committee, because he believed the practice of similar committees was to put all questions in writing, and receive answers in the same manner. But if the House should decline to adopt this proposition, they could protect the witness, as their duty required them to do, by preventing dan gerous weapons from entering the committee room. In conclusion, Mr. A. observed that the House having resolved on prosecuting this subject of contempt, he was willing to hear all the facts and circumstances connected with it, and ascertain whether the accused considered himself in a state of duresse, and entitled to the protection of the House, or whether it was a mere pretext on his part to avoid giving testimony before the committee. When the "truth and whole truth" should come to light, we could act as become the dignity and honor of the representatives of a free and enlightened people. Mr. CHAPIN moved to amend the modified resolution of Mr. GHOLSON, by adding to the end thereof the following: [FEB. 13, 1837. "That the questions put shall be reduced to writing before proposed to the witness, and that the answers be also reduced to writing. Every question put by any other member of the committee shall be reduced to writing by such member, and be propounded to the witness by the Speaker, if not objected to; but if any question shall be objected to, or any testimony offered shall be objected to, by any member, the member so objecting, and the accused or his counsel, shall be withdrawn; after which, the question shall be decided without further de bate. If parole evidence is offered, the witnesses shall be sworn by the Speaker, and be examined at the bar, unless they are members of the House, in which case they may be examined in their places." Mr. CHAPIN said his object in offering the amendment proposed was to save time, and prevent the confusion which must necessarily result from proceeding with the trial of the accused without establishing some rules to govern the action of the House. This proposition accomplishes directly what the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. LINCOLN] designed to do by raising a committee to report forthwith a mode of proceeding. We are admonished by the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means [Mr. CAMBRELENG] that the important appropriation bills are in danger of being lost by the waste of time in adhering to established forms, and that no obstacles should be thrown in the way of a prompt decision of the case before the House. This amendment imbodies, substantially, the mode of proceeding recommended by the committee of privi leges, in the celebrated case of Houston, pending before this House, in 1832. It was important to determine, preliminarily, by whom the prosecution should be conducted; in what manner the questions should be put, and the answers given; whether orally or in writing; and by whom objections to the testimony should be argued or the whole proceeding would lead to confusion and an interminable debate. Mr. C. voted against the resolution requiring Mr. Whitney to be brought to the bar of this House. He did so, because the only evidence of the refusal of the witness to obey the summons of the committee, of which the honorable gentleman from Virginia [Mr. WISE] was chairman, set forth at length the grounds of such refusal, and to his mind they were perfectly satisfactory. But he would, for the present, waive the discussion on that point; as it involved the merits of the controversy, it would not be in order to discuss it in this stage of the proceeding. Mr. C. said he would conclude by asking the honorable gentleman from Mississippi to accept the amendment he had offered, as a modification of the original resolu tion. Mr. PARKS said that he, as well as the gentleman from Indiana, was opposed to bringing this individual before the House; but, as he was brought there, they owed it to the gentleman himself, and to the House, that he have a hearing. The motion pending was, that a committee of five be appointed to examine witnesses on the part of the House; and for the purpose of settling the question, and of ascertaining whether they would lay it aside, or go on with it, he moved the previous question. Mr. GHOLSON appealed to Mr. PARKS to withdraw the motion for a moment; which he did; when Mr. G. accepted of the amendment of Mr. CHAPIN; and Mr. PARKS then renewed the motion for the previ ous question; which was seconded by the House: Yeas 97, nays 33; and the main question, having been ordered, was put, and carried, without a division. So the resolution, as modified, was agreed to by the House. The SPEAKER then announced the committee; and FEB. 13, 1837.] Texas-John Paul Jones. [H. OF R. Mr. Whitney was again brought in, the order read to committee of the House, complaining of certain proceedhim, and he put in a list of witnesses he requested to beings, and asking the House to grant him redress. summoned. Mr. UNDERWOOD rose to protest against the whole proceedings, from the beginning to the end. This was the first time he had ever seen an individual who was put upon his trial for an alleged contempt, in which he TEXAS. Mr. THOMPSON, of South Carolina, presented the petition of citizens of the District of Columbia, praying he moved to refer to the Committee of the Whole on for the recognition of the independence of Texas; which the state of the Union, and make it the order of the day for next Tuesday week. Mr. HOWARD moved to refer it to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. was about to be authorized to summon witnesses to testify in regard to another matter, before he has been called upon to purge himself of the contempt alleged. His idea was, that as Mr. Whitney had refused to attend before a committee of the House and testify, he should be called upon to testify, upon oath, why he did not attend before that committee; and, after that, if the House should decide that his reasons were sufficient, they of course would excuse him, and direct him to be dischargexpect a report from that committee on the subject of the recognition of the independence of Texas. Mr. ROBERTSON inquired if a question of this kind was in order. ed; but if he did not answer, or if his reasons for not going before the committee were insufficient, they would keep him in custody until he did answer. [Mr. TURRILL submitted to the Chair whether the whole merits of this question were open for discus sion. The CHAIR informed the gentleman from Kentucky that the merits of the question were not now open for discussion.] Mr. U. continued. This witness had stated his willingness to testify, provided he could do so consistent with his personal safety. As soon as he testified upon oath as to his reasons for not appearing before the committee, and it was ascertained that these reasons were good reasons, he purged himself of the contempt; but if he would not take an oath that his life was in danger, the House would be under the necessity of keeping him in custody until he would testify. But, said Mr. U., suppose you bring this individual before the House, allow him counsel, and have a committee to put interrogatories to him, where was this thing to terminate? He considered that all this difficulty could be avoided by requiring Mr. Whitney to state why and wherefore he did not appear before the select committee of the House to give evidence; and if his evidence was sufficient, they were bound to discharge him. In his view of the case, all the House wanted was to know what Mr. Whitney's feelings were in regard to his refusing to appear before the committee; and that they could not obtain by an examination of witnesses. Mr. HARRISON, of Missouri, moved a reconsideration of the vote by which the resolution in relation to Mr. Whitney was adopted; but the motion was negatived: Yeas 92, nays 95. The respondent was then removed from the bar, and the House proceeded to the consideration of other busi ness. Several petitions and memorials were now presented, in the reversed order of States and Territories; among which, The SPEAKER presented the petition of Jacob Grear, stating that he had in his possession a fifty dollar note, money of the Continental Congress, which he prayed Congress might be paid in gold and silver. Mr. PATTON moved that the petition be laid on the table; which motion was rejected. Mr. McKEON moved to refer the petition to the Committee of Ways and Means. A motion was made to commit to the Committee on Revolutionary Claims. This petition, giving rise to debate, was laid over. The CHAIR replied that, by the courtesy of the House, inquiries of this kind were permitted. Mr. HOWARD then reminded the gentleman from mittee on Foreign Affairs had directed him to introduce Alabama [Mr. LEWIS] that about a month ago the Coma resolution calling on the President of the United States for information in regard to our intercourse with Mexico, as they considered it to have a direct bearing upon the subject of our affairs with Texas; and they considered the information they were to obtain by that resolution as most material in making up an opinion in relation to the recognition of the independence of Texas. House, it would be recollected that he (Mr. H.) had moved to commit it to the Committee on Foreign Af fairs; when a motion was made to accompany that reference with instructions; and, in consequence of this, the Committee on Foreign Affairs had never, up to this mocontained in the document, it being still tied up in the ment, had it in their power to get at the information House. The gentleman from Alabama must therefore perceive that, as the committee had not yet had access of reference was settled. to these papers, it could do nothing until this question But when the document called for came before the JOHN PAUL JONES. Mr. PINCKNEY said he had been requested, by a number of individuals interested in certain prizes made by the late celebrated John Paul Jones, to endeavor to obtain for them the compensation to which they were respectively entitled for their services. In relation to this matter, he had applied for information to the Treas ury Department, and had obtained therefrom a statement respecting the prizes sent into France, which on his motion had been ordered to be printed for the use of the House. It appeared from that statement that the sum of twenty thousand dollars had been received on account of the capture of the Serapis, the Countess of Scarborough, and Bonhomme Richard, of which by far the greater portion had been paid away, leaving only a small balance of three or four thousand dollars to be divided amongst such of the captors of those vessels as may still survive. But there was another class of captures: he alluded to those that were sent into Bergen, in Norway, and which were there delivered up to the English by the Crown of Denmark. It appeared to him that if ever a reclamation was to be made on Denmark for the value of those prizes, it was high time that a negotiation should be opened. He therefore ask Mr. LAY moved the Committee on Roads and Canals. The SPEAKER presented the petition of Reuben M. Whitney, (accompanied by a letter requesting the Speaker, as the presiding officer of the House, to present the same,) stating that he had been summoned before a Leave being granted, Mr. P. then sent to the Chair the following resolution: A joint resolution requesting the President of the United States to assert and prosecute with effect the claim of the United States against Denmark for the value of the three prizes made by John Paul Jones, in 1779, and which were sent by him into Bergen, in Norway, and there delivered up to the English by the Crown of Denmark. Mr. HOWARD moved that it be referred to the Com mittee on Foreign Affairs. He was under the impression that it was embraced under the last treaty between the United States and Denmark. Mr. PINCKNEY had no objection to the reference, but was perfectly satisfied that those prizes had never been made the subject of any treaty stipulation with Denmark. The resolution submitted the propriety of action to the judgment of the President, and he hoped the committee would soon report it. The resolution was then referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. COLONIZATION SOCIETY. Mr. INGERSOLL presented a petition praying aid to [FEB. 14, 1837. APPROPRIATION BILLS. On motion of Mr. CAMBRELENG, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. PATTON in the chair,) for the pur pose of proceeding to the consideration of the annual appropriation bills-that for the naval service being pending. ARMY BILL. Mr. CAMBRELENG hoped the committee would, before proceeding to the navy bill, take up the bill ma king appropriations for the support of the army, and concur in the amendments of the Senate to that bill, the principal amendment being for the pay of the Tennessee volunteers. He moved that this bill be taken up; which was accordingly done. After some remarks by Messrs. CARTER and WHITTLESEY, Mr. GRAVES moved an amendment to the bill, ap. the Colonization Society, which he moved be referred propriating $75,000 for the payment of the expenses of to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Mr. ADAMS objected, and contended that the memorial should be laid on the table, under the order of the 18th of January. The SPEAKER said the memorial would not come sented, which, in some instances, had been referred, the Kentucky volunteers, who were called out under the orders of General Gaines, and received into the service of the United States, but were immediately discharged. under the resolution. Similar memorials had been pre-pointed out the obvious injustice there would be in drawMr. G. advocated his amendment at some length, and and in others had been laid on the table. In the lattering any line of distinction between men having equal instance, the disposition was the effect of a motion made for such purpose. Mr. ADAMS called for the reading of the memorial. And the memorial, giving rise to debate, was then ordered to lie over. CONTEMPTS. Mr. BEAUMONT, by consent, offered the following resolution: Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to inquire into the expediency of bringing in a bill defining the offence of a contempt of this House, and to provide for the punishment thereof. After some remarks from Messrs. BEAUMONT and ADAMS, Mr. CAMBRELENG moved the previous question, and the House seconded the call. And the main question was ordered to be now taken. And the main question, being on the adoption of the resolution, was taken, and decided in the negative. So the resolution was rejected. After the presentation and disposition of several other petitions and resolutions, The House adjourned. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14. PRINTING OF MAPS. Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee, asked leave of the House to introduce a resolution regulating the duties of the Clerk of the House. He said that it was usual for the Clerk, under general orders of the House for printing documents or other papers, to cause to be printed plats and maps, which cost annually some ten or fifteen thousand dollars, and which were of no use to the House or public, and often printed without the wish of even the member presenting such papers to the House. correct this evil, he asked leave to offer the following resolution: Το Resolved, That the Clerk of the House be, and he is hereby, directed to have printed no map or plat, under any general order of the House for printing documents or papers, and not without a special order of the House for that purpose. The House refused to receive the resolution at that time. claims upon the gratitude or consideration of the country; and pointed out the identity between the Tennes see and Kentucky volunteers. Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee, said he regretted that the gentleman from Kentucky had thought it necessary to throw any impediment in the way of the passage of this bill. The volunteers provided for in this bill had been mustered by an officer of the United States, and received into the public service, and the muster rolls returned to the War Department, and, as such, were enti tled to their pay as much as the regular soldiers in the army of the United States. He was not averse to the payment of the volunteers from Kentucky-very far from it; they should be paid, and will be paid; but he appre hended that the distinction taken by the chairman of the Committee of Claims between the class of cases provided for in this bill, and the class proposed to be provided for in the amendment of the gentleman from Kentucky, merited the attention of the committee. The latter class had not been received and mustered into the service of the United States by an officer of the United States, nor had a muster roll been returned. If provision for their payment is now to be made, it must be a gross sum, leaving it to the judgment of the paying officers to decide who were entitled, and who were not entitled. In the former case, the troops were mustered and organized under the laws of the United States, and would be paid as such. In the latter case, they were organized, he presumed, under the laws of Kentucky, which might be altogether different from that required by the laws of the United States. Before any appropriation could be, therefore, properly made, he apprehended the rolls of the several companies should be examined at the War Department, and estimates furnished by that Department. These volunteers ought, as he had before said, to be paid, and no doubt would be. But can we do it now safely? The Kentucky volunteers are left upon the same footing with the Tennessee volunteers, similarly situated, to be provided for hereafter, when proper information should be received at the Depart ment; and he understood there was perhaps as large a number not received into the service of the United States as those who had been actually received into the service. Mr. J. expressed a hope that the present bill might be permitted to pass. rectness of paying those provided for in this bill; and he None doubted the cor |