JAN. 4, 1836.] Slavery in the District of Columbia. course heretofore adopted, he should move that the petition, without reading, be laid on the table. Mr. A. was here interrupted by [H. OF R. addressed to the House, "shall not be debated or decided on the day of their being first read." These rules were the laws of this House; those who enacted these Mr. PATTON, who asked whether the petition had rules were the law-makers, who enacted this little code been received. The CHAIR replied in the negative. Mr. GLASCOCK moved that the petition be not received. The CHAIR stated that, upon looking into the authori. ties, he had formed the opinion that the first question to be decided upon the motion of a member was, whether the petition be received or not. Mr. GLASCOCK felt it his duty, he said, notwithstanding the great discussion which had taken place on the subject, again to bring before the House, for its decision, the question of the reception of these petitions. He contended that, according to Mr. Jefferson's authori ty, which he cited, the motion was a proper one, and did not conflict with the right of petition; and, moreover, that it was expedient for the House to sustain the motion, if they wished to avoid the consideration of the question. The CHAIR here stated that the discussion must be confined strictly to the question of the reception of the petition. Mr. GLASCOCK resumed his remarks in support of the motion not to receive the petition. Mr. J. Q. ADAMS rose to a point of order. The 45th rule, he said, required that no petition should be debated or decided on the day of its presentation. If the rule was not observed, the question might be debated the whole day, and members deprived of an opportunity of presenting their petitions. He appealed to that rule of order, and demanded, he said, that the question, if it was debated, should be postponed to a day certain. A long discussion arose, in which Messrs. MERCER, SUTHERLAND, CRAIG, REED, BRIGGS, BELL, GLASCOCK, BEARDSLEY, WILLIAMS of North Carolina, PATTON, MANN, UNDERWOOD, THOMAS of Maryland, HAMER, EVERETT of Vermont, and J. Q. ADAMS, took part. Mr. VANDERPOEL said that he did not profess to be very deeply learned in rules and orders; but the attention he had paid to what honorable gentlemen had already said upon this question of appeal, and the little reflection he had bestowed upon it this morning, had brought his mind to the conclusion that the Speaker was wrong; and he would very briefly state his reasons for the conclusion which bis mind had attained. Mr. V. said it had been remarked by the Speaker, and by his honorable colleague, [Mr. BEARDSLEY,] that the rules had not provided for such a case as was presented by the motion "not to receive the petition," made by the honorable gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. GLASCOCK.] It was, then, he supposed, a casus omissus, according to the views of certain gentlemen. Suppose it were so what was the question? And did it not come at least within the spirit of one of the rules of the House? The question was, whether the motion of the honorable gentleman from Georgia could be debated to-day? He humbly apprehended that this question was reached by the spirit of the forty-fifth rule of this House, which provides that petitions, memorials, and other papers, VOL. XII.-134 for the government of our deliberations here. All gentlemen who had spoken seemed to concur in the opinion, that the object of the provision "that petitions or memorials shall not be debated or decided on the day of their being first read," was to prevent debate upon a single petition, which might consume the day provided by the rules for presenting petitions, and thus prevent all other petitioners from bringing their petitions before the House. We all agreed as to the spirit of the rule. If we sustained the Speaker, and permitted the debate upon the motion to reject the petition to occupy the day, would we not entirely frustrate the object of the rule, as to which all concurred? That object was to secure to all gentlemen, at least for one day, an equal right to present their petitions to the House; and here we would defeat that object, by permitting one gentleman, on the first hour of the first day, to enter upon a debate in relation to this petition, that would, if not arrested, most certainly consume the day. If we sustained the Chair, (said Mr. V.,) that portion of the rule which intended to guard against debate on the first day of the presenta. tion of a petition would be entirely nugatory. Yes, it would be worse than a nullity; for it was competent for any gentleman, the moment a petition was introduced, to rise in his place and move that that petition should not be received. If it be true that such a motion must be forthwith disposed of, and may be debated the same day the petition to which it applies is presented, then a single member might, at all times, prevent all other members from introducing their petitions; because it was very obvious that the author of such a motion, in order to sustain it, would naturally go, and would surely be permitted to go, into the whole subject-matter of the petition. He would, perhaps, undertake to show that it called upon the House to grant an unconstitutional request; and we have already had experience enough to convince us that speeches about constitutional doctrines were never distinguished for brevity. Gentlemen who entertain adverse views would then undertake to show that the object of the petitioners was right, reasonable, and constitutional; and we would thus, before the petition reached the Speaker's table-nay, before it passed out of the hands of the gentleman who presented itlaunch forth into a discussion, in extenso, upon the relative merits and demerits of the subject-matter of the petition; and this, not only to the exclusion of all other petitioners, but at a stage of the matter so early, that it was very unreasonable to ask gentlemen to vote as to the merits or demerits of the object of the petition. It was well known to the House that he (Mr. V.) was opposed to the object of this petition, but he felt himself called upon to say that he could not sustain the Speaker consistently with what he thought was the spirit of the forty-fifth rule, and consistently with the fair exercise of that equal right of petition which he supposed belonged to all the citizens of this confederacy. Mr. BYNUM said he entered on the discussion of this subject with a mingled sense of pain and pleasure. He had ever been opposed to the agitation of this subject, here or elsewhere, and he denounced now and protested against the discussion of abolition within the walls of this House. But he had said that he rose with a sense of mingled pain and pleasure-he was pleased to see gentlemen show their hands on this subject. He thereby was enabled to tell those who favored this unholy agitation which threatened so imminently the dissolution He had said that he disdained to of this blessed Union. debate this question in this place; this was not the prop er place to settle it; and he took the occasion to assure gentlemen who thought differently, that that question The SPEAKER reminded Mr. B. that he could not debate the merits of the question on an appeal. Mr. BYNUM said he was aware of that. He was going on in reply to the remarks of the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. ADAMS,] who seemed not to know the spirit and feelings of the southern people on that subject. That honorable gentleman had said, as well as others who preceded him on the same side of the question, that it should and ought to be met. He was the last man, he hoped, in or out of the House, that would blink this or any other question; but he had said he disdained to meet the question here, and discuss it here, because it was not, nor could it be, settled by Congress; and gentlemen who thought so deceived themselves most egregiously, and he was determined that they should know it on the first and every occasion that presented itself. The SPEAKER again informed Mr. B. that he must confine himself to the motion before the House, and was not to discuss the main question. Then, (said Mr. B.,) the illustrious framers of this body were reputed to be men of intelligence; and, if so, they would hardly have organized a body, such as this House is, without giving it power to protect itself. In fact, a contrary supposition would be a reflection on their illustrious memories; and how could that be effected without the power of rejecting an offensive petition or memorial, the very entertaining of which struck both at their dignity and very existence? The cases alluded to by his honorable friend from Ohio, [Mr. HAMER,] he thought perfectly analogous-the gentleman from Massachusetts to the contrary notwithstanding. If the House had not the right to reject, on the first blush, an offensive communication on its presentation, it was subject, at all times, to the insults and impudent abuse of every miserable, contemptible combination of wretches that might choose to reflect on and bring it into disrepute. Mr. B. said he had thought that, after the precedent just read by the honorable Speaker, there would not have been any further doubt entertained by any gentleman on the propriety of the decision of the Chair, or of the course that the petition should take. But the venerable gentleman from Massachusetts had objected to the similitude or analogy of the two cases; to prove which, he undertook to discuss the characters of the memorialists-one he said was a foreigner. He (Mr. B.) would not say that the characters of the memorialists, whose petition the gentleman had presented, were worse than foreigners. From the respect which he entertained for the honorable gentleman, and for others of the House, he did not wish to discuss the characters of those wicked, infamous petitioners, nor would be at that time, though there might be a time and an occasion when he would speak freely of those wretches that were throwing firebrands in this House, that might light up a flame, not to be quenched with water, but with blood; and the only way, in his judgment, to avoid it was to stifle every attempt at excitement on the occasion, by putting an early stop to the consideration of all such memorials by an immediate rejection. He was sorry that he differed most widely from the opinions of two honorable gentlemen, for whom he entertained the greatest respect-the honorable gentleman [JAN. 5, 1836. from Virginia, [Mr. PATTON,] and the honorable gentle- thing about the want of precedents on this subject, and discussion, but to endeavor to put an end to it. The The House then adjourned, at four o'clock. shire; Mr. REED, of Massachusetts; Mr. MAY, of Illinois; TUESDAY, JANUARY 5. NEW YORK SUFFERERS BY FIRE. of the port of New York is hereby authorized and di- JAN. 6, 1836.] Public Lands-Captain Nathan Hale. Mr. C. said the substitute would, he hoped, meet the approbation of the House, as it did that of the committee of the sufferers; and he gave notice that he should ask the House to go into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union to-morrow, for the purpose of taking up the bill. PUBLIC LANDS. Mr. CASEY, from the Committee on Public Lands, reported a bill to graduate the price of public lands, make provision for actual settlers, and cede the refuse lands to the States in which they lie. Read twice, and committed to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. Mr. WILLIAMS, of North Corolina, said the bill and report just made by the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. CASEY,] related to a very important subject; and it was desirable that information should be distributed as to the nature and object of the measure proposed. He there. fore moved the printing of 3,000 extra copies of the bill and report; which motion, by consent, was considered and agreed to. Mr. BEARDSLEY moved the suspension of the rule. Mr. BOND said he should move that the memorial be not received. Mr. KINNARD called for the yeas and nays; which were ordered. Mr. ASHLEY inquired what was the character of the memorial. [H. OF R. law of 1819, it was provided that, in case of inconvenient delay in the printing of documents by the printer to the House, it should be the duty of the Clerk to employ another printer, and charge the excess of cost to the printer guilty of such delay. He had risen to ask the Clerk if he could inform the House what was the cause of the delay and gross negligence which had occurred in the execution of the order of the House? The message and documents were annually ready in ten days; and now a month had passed, and but a few copies had been laid on our tables. The CHAIR said he could not entertain the discussion without the assent of the House. Mr. GILLET offered to give the explanations requested. Mr. REYNOLDS moved an adjournment; which was agreed to; and The House then adjourned. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6. CAPTAIN NATHAN HALE. Mr. WARD from the Committee on Military Affairs, asked to be discharged from the further consideration of the petition of sundry citizens of the town of Coventry, State of Connecticut, praying the erection of a monument to the memory of Captain Nathan Hale, of the revolutionary army. Mr. W. stated that the committee were of the opinion that they possessed no jurisdiction of the matter referred. Mr. JUDSON moved that the petition of the citizens of the town of Coventry be committed to a select committee; and, in support of that motion, proceeded to remark that this petition came from nearly five hundred of his fellow-citizens, who were honest in purpose and respectable in character. It had been heretofore referThe question was then taken on the motion to suspended to the Committee on Military Affairs, and that comthe rule, and it was determined in the negative: Yeas mittee had come to the result that the subject of the 110, nays 101. Mr. BEARDSLEY said it related to the general boundary question. SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Mr. CRAIG asked the unanimous consent of the House to the postponement of the question of order before the House at the last sitting, for the purpose of calling the States for petitions; which was objected to. Mr. BEARDSLEY moved the postponement of the question of order before the House till Tuesday next. Mr. J. Q. ADAMS asked what was the question be. fore the House when it adjourned. The journal was read, and Mr. A. expressed his assent to the postponement. The motion to postpone was agreed to. MICHIGAN MEMORIAL. Mr. BEARDSLEY presented the memorial of the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Michigan, and moved its reference to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. HANNEGAN called for the reading of the memorial. The Clerk proceeded to read it. On motion of Mr. HANNEGAN, the reading was suspended; and Mr. HANNEGAN moved the rejection of the memo rial. The CHAIR decided that the motion and the subject to which it related must lie over till to-morrow. PRINTING DOCUMENTS. Mr. WISE rose and said, that on the 8th day of December, it was, on his motion, ordered that 15,000 copies of the President's message and accompanying documents, and 5,000 copies of the message without the documents, be printed for the use of this House. By the memorial did not necessarily fall within their jurisdic tion. The motion was now made to refer the memorial to a select committee, upon the idea that there was no standing committee organized by the House to whom the same could be appropriately referred. It was, in deed, matter of surprise that, to a request so reasonable, there should be one objection heard; when the question should be understood, he was sure all such objections would be withdrawn. Captain Nathan Hale, of the State of Connecticut, a brave young man, stimulated by his ardent patriotism, entered the army, and was intrusted with a captain's commission; and, during that glorious struggle, General Washington requested the services of some officer to ascertain the condition of the invading army, when a knowledge of the movements of that army were essential to the existence of the American army. No officer could be found to perform this delicate and hazardous service, until Captain Hale became a volunteer, and, in that service, he died a martyr in the cause. No notice had ever been taken of that event by the Government. It was due to the honor of the nation that it should now be done; and this was the object of the reference moved. This was not without precedent. Congress had ordered a monument to be erected over the remains of the lamented General Brown, at the exthe course; and it might now be asked, was not this a pense of the United States. Every American approved case of equal moment? Should the reference be made, it would be competent for the committee to report on the specific prayer, or they might report that suitable measures be taken to remove to the sepulchre of his fathers the remains of Captain Hale, or to extend to his heirs at law the benefits of the resolution of 1780. The House should not be now detained further on the mere question of reference; but when the committee should have reported, it should then be his business to show this House that these petitions must not be sent away unheard. After a few remarks of an explanatory character, and In reference to the meritorious services of Captain Hale, by Messrs. JUDSON, WARD, PEARCE of Rhode Island, ADAMS, and TOUCEY, the memorial was referred to a select committee of five, and, on motion of Mr. BRIGGS, ordered to be printed. SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. The CHAIR proceeded, under the rule, to call for resolutions by States, commencing with the State of Maine. Mr. JARVIS, of Maine, submitted the following res olution: Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, the subject of the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia ought not to be entertained by Congress. And be it further resolved, that, in case any petition praying the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia be hereafter presented, it is the deliberate opinion of the House that the same ought to be laid upon the table, without being referred or printed. Mr. JARVIS said the resolution which he had just submitted was precisely similar to the one which the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. OwENS] had endeavored to bring before the House without success, and he now offered it at his request; but he was not doing so out of mere courtesy to that gentleman, but from a desire that this subject might be settled in such a manner as might be satisfactory to the southern people. Mr. ADAMS requested that this resolution might be postponed until the States were called through for reso lutions. Mr. JARVIS resumed. He said if he thought there was any probability of keeping off a discussion of the subject, he would not object to having it postponed; but, as it was, he thought we might as well take it up now as at any other time. He did not mean to enter into a discussion of the subject, but merely to state, in a few words, that, from all he had seen for the last month, he entertained no doubt that not only a large majority of the House, but also a large majority of the Representatives of the non-slaveholding States, were decidedly averse to any action on the subject of the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia by Congress. His constituents deprecated the agitation of the question. They consider that it belongs exclusively to the southern States, and that any interfer ence by us would be unwise and unwarrantable. thought he was fully justified in making this assertion, by what took place in Maine during the last summer. In the meetings which were then held party spirit was lost sight of, and men who had never acted together before were found uniting, like a band of brothers, to avert a catastrophe which impended over us. Then, without distinction of party, the most prominent in station, in private worth, in wealth and intelligence, attended these meetings; and resolutions were adopted at them which spoke but one language, and that was a rep. robation of the abolitionists. By permission of the House he would read a resolution which was unanimously adopted at the meeting which was held at Augusta, the seat of Government of the State of Maine: He [JAN. 6, 1836. of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now bind together its various parts." " Mr. J. said that comment on this resolution was useless. It was not his intention to enter further into this discussion; nor would he have said thus much, had it not been for misrepresentations (no doubt unintentional) which had been made upon this floor, with regard to the feelings of the people of the eastern States, which, at the time, there was no opportunity to repel. When Mr. J. concluded his remarks, Mr. J. Q. ADAMS moved to lay the resolutions on the table. Mr. GLASCOCK asked for the yeas and nays; which were ordered. Mr. MILLER asked for the reading of the resolu tions; which being done, the question was taken on laying the resolutions on the table, by yeas and nays, as fol lows: YEAS--Messrs. Adams, Chilton Allan, Heman Allen, Anthony, Ashley, Bailey, Beaumont, Bond, Borden, Briggs, Carr, George Chambers, John Chambers, Childs, Clark, Corwin, Crane, Cushing, Davis, Denny, Evans, Philo C. Fuller, Grennell, Haley, Hiland Hall, Hammond, Hard, Hardin, Henderson, Hoar, Howell, Inger. soll, William Jackson, Janes, Joseph Johnson, Kennon, Kinnard, Klingensmith, Laporte, Lawrence, Lincoln, Logan, Love, Job Mann, S. Mason, McComas, McKennan, Milligan, Morris, Parker, Dutee J. Pearce, Peyton, Phillips, Potts, Reed, Russell, Shields, Sprague, Storer, Sutherland, Underwood, Vinton, White, Whittlesey, Lewis Williams, Wise-66. NAYS-Messrs. Ash, Barton, Beale, Bean, Beards. ley, Bell, Bockee, Boon, Brown, Buchanan, Bunch, Bynum, William B. Calhoun, Cambreleng, Campbell, Carter, Casey, Chaney, Chapman, N. H. Claiborne, J. F. H. Claiborne, Cleveland, Coffee, Coles, Connor, Craig, Cramer, Cushman, Deberry, Doubleday, Dromgoole, Efner, Everett, Fairfield, Farlin, Fry, William K. Fuller, Galbraith, James Garland, Rice Garland, Gillet, Glascock, Graham, Granger, Grantland, Grayson, Griffin, Joseph Hall, Hamer, Hannegan, Samuel S. Harrison, Albert G. Harrison, Haynes, Hazeltine, Hiester, Holsey, Hopkins, Howard, Hubley, Huntington, Hunstman, Ingham, Jabez Jackson, Jarvis, R. M. Johnson, Cave Johnson, Henry Johnson, John W. Jones, Benjamin Jones, Judson, Kilgore, Lane, Lan. sing, Lawler, Gideon Lee, Joshua Lee, Luke Lea, Loyall, Lucas, Lyon, Abijah Mann, Manning, Martin, William Mason, Moses Mason, Maury, May, McKay, McKeon, McLene, Miller, Montgomery, Moore, Morgan, Muhlenberg, Owens, Page, Parks, Patterson, Patton, James A. Pearce, Phelps, Pickens, Pinckney, Rencher, John Reynolds, Joseph Reynolds, Ripley, Roane, Robertson, Rogers, Seymour, William B. Shepard, Augustine H. Shepperd, Shinn, Slade, Smith, Spangler, Stande fer, Steele, Taliaferro, Taylor, Thomas, John Thomson, Toucey, Towns, Turner, Turrill, Van. derpoel, Ward, Wardwell, Washington, Weeks-133. Mr. CAMBRELENG called for the orders of the day; but withdrew his motion at the request of Mr. WISE, who pledged himself to renew it. Mr. WISE then moved the following amendment: Amend by striking out after "Resolved," and insert, "That there is no power of legislation granted by the constitution to the Congress of the United States to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and that any attempt by Congress to legislate upon the subject of slavery will be not only unauthorized, but dangerous to the Union of the States." "Resolved, That any interference by the non-slaveholding States on the subject of slavery is incompatible with the preservation of the Union; we view with regret and alarm all attempts to excite such interference or to disturb the peace of the country by the fruitless agita- Mr. WISE said, before he renewed the motion of the tion of that exciting subject; and we hold it to be the gentleman from New York, he would take that oppor duty of every patriot to frown upon the first dawningtunity to say that he hoped his amendment to the reso lution of the gentleman from Maine would bring the direct question before the House. The war was now commenced between evasive and direct propositions upon this subject, for he regarded the propositions of the gentleman from Maine as entirely evasive. He regarded them as unsatisfactory to the South, and nothing could satisfy them but a bold, direct, and manly vote upon this question. Let it be settled. That was all they asked. He wished now to see who would vote for the one proposition, and who for the other. He wished to see now who would move the previous question to cut off this amendment. He wished the whole South to mark it, if the previous question to this amendment should be put upon them. Let them toe it, and let the South be undeceived, or let the South be guarantied in her rights. Mr. W. moved to print the original resolution and the amendment, and then renewed the motion for the orders of the day. Mr. GLASCOCK rose to request the gentleman from Virginia to withdraw his motion, as he simply wished to offer an amendment to the resolution also. Mr. WISE said it lay with the gentleman from New York. Mr. CAMBRELENG assented. Mr. GLASCOCK moved the following, as an additional resolution: Resolved, That any attempt to agitate the question of slavery in this House is calculated to disturb the compromises of the constitution, to endanger the Union, and, if persisted in, to destroy, by a servile war, the peace and prosperity of the country. The CHAIR said the gentleman must move it as an amendment to the amendment. Mr. GLASCOCK then made that motion. Mr. WISE accepted it as a modification of his amend ment. Mr. GLASCOCK wished, he said, his amendment to be offered as a substitute for that of the gentleman from Virginia, so that the whole question, in some form or other, would be presented to the consideration of the House. The CHAIR said that could only be done by moving to strike out from the amendment all after a certain word. It would be competent for the gentleman from Georgia to move to strike out all after the word "that," and insert his amendment. Mr. GLASCOCK said he would make that motion. His object was, as expressed by the gentleman from Vir ginia, to come to some understanding, and, by some direct and decisive vote, ascertain how far their northern brethren were disposed to go with those of the South on this question; and he was gratified to find that, for the first time, it began to assume some tangible shape. Mr. G. said he wished it distinctly understood that, so far as the resolutions of the gentleman from Maine went, they met his approbation; but that they did not go far enough was perfectly clear to himself, and evident upon the very face of them. Whatever might be the constitutional difference of opinion as to the right of Congress to interfere with slavery in the District of Columbia, it was expected by the South, if such a right be recog nised, (which he would not for a moment believe,) that something definite should be done, and that we should be placed in possession of their views on this important subject; and he believed they would be such as to quiet all fears, and sooth the feelings of a now agitated people. If, however, he was mistaken, in the language of his resolution, further attempts to agitate this question here would be calculated to disturb the compromises of the constitution, and endanger this Union. The simple act of laying petitions of the character of those presented here, and expected to be presented, on the table, was not calculated to allay the feelings of the [H. OF R. South, and if such a result was anticipated, gentlemen were indeed mistaken. But he did believe that if, on the present occasion, there could be a clear expression of opinion against the right of Congress to interfere with slavery in this District, coupled with the sentiments of the public meetings held throughout the different States of the North, that it would tranquillize the "troubled waters," and have the tendency to quiet and satisfy the South. But if it be not done, these fond anticipations would never be realized. Now, said Mr. G., was the proffered time for his northera brethren to come forth. the crisis had arrived when they should speak out, and if they spoke and acted as he expected, then all would be well. Mr. G. said he had no objections that a direct resolution, or series of resolutions, should be offered, declaring that it was a violation of the constitution for Congress to interfere with slavery here; that he had satisfied himself it was unconstitutional, and should vote for any such resolution. But, whilst he was disposed to do this himself, he was not prepared to censure those, or impugn the motives of such as might differ with him. And he felt it to be his duty in candor to state that, so far as the abstract question of the constitutional right was concerned as to this District, there were various and conflicting opinions, among the best jurists as well as constitutional lawyers of the country, and he regretted that some of these were to be found even in the South. And even here, in this House, said Mr. G., he knew several who would vote against any resolution declaring it unconsti tutional in Congress to interfere with slavery in the District, but who would go heart and hand with the southern members against any such interference, and against the reading and even printing of the petitions of the abolitionists, or furthering their views, either directly or indirectly. And, from what had taken place, he looked with great confidence for a warm and cordial support of the resolution which he had the honor to offer. He thought it the least the South ought to expect, and what they had a right to require, from their brethren of the North. Mr. HOLSEY then rose, and, after proceeding a few moments, gave way to Mr. CAMBRELENG, who moved the orders of the day; which motion was agreed to. SEMINOLE HOSTILITIES. On motion of Mr. CAMBRELENG, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, Mr. CoxNon in the chair. On motion of Mr. CAMBRELENG, the committee proceeded to consider the following bill: A bill making an appropriation for repressing hostilities commenced by the Seminole Indians. Be it enacted, &c., That the sum of $80,000 be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the expenses attending the repression of hostilities commenced by the Seminole Indians in Florida. A communication from the Secretary of War on the subject was read; when Mr. CAMBRELENG briefly adverted to the depredations committed by the Seminoles, their having laid waste and desolated the country for eighty miles, &c. Mr. VINTON inquired whether the gentleman from New York was in possession of any information as to the cause of this war, or who commenced it? Mr. CAMBRELENG said he had in his possession a package of documents containing the desired information. The disturbance had grown out of a treaty with the Seminoles, the execution of which had been postponed from time to time by them; and when a portion |