North, and as a violation of the law of comity, which every independent State or nation is bound to observe towards a neighboring State. The case stated is this: A grand jury of Alabama prefers an indictment against a citizen of New York, who has never entered the limits of the territory of Alabama, for the commission of an alleged crime in violating a law of the last-mentioned State. The Governor of Alabama demands of the Governor of New York the surrender of the supposed culprit to the Government of Alabama, to be tried by the courts of the last-named State, by the laws of the same State, and for a violation of a law enacted by a State into whose territory the offender never entered until transported there for trial and punishment. The bare statement of such a claim would seem to be sufficient to place it in its true light, but for the charac ter and standing of those who thus come forward in its support. It is because the Chief Magistrate of one of the States in the Union and an honorable member of this House urge this claim on the North, and especially because a refusal by one northern Governor to comply with this request is made a ground of criminating the whole northern section of the country, that gives it a claim to notice. What is the great fundamental principle of our Government? Is it not that the people shall govern themselves? In the case above stated, the law is enacted by a Legislature wholly foreign to him who is claimed as its subject. The legislator is in no way nor degree amenable to him, or to those who are said to be subject to the law; nor have the latter, in any way or degree, given to the former any authority or power to control their conduct. To allow this principle would indeed introduce a strange state of things. The highest judicial tribunals of the State of New York cannot officially understand the laws of another State, until they are proved as facts in the particular case in which they are to be applied; and yet the most uneducated adult person in the State of New York would be exposed to be seized, transported a thousand miles from his home, tried for a breach of one of those laws, which the judges of his own State cannot know, and, it may be, condemned to fine, imprisonment, or death, for doing an act which, if judged by the laws of his own State, is perfectly innocent. Mr. Speaker, if this be not slavery, I will acknowledge the obligation to any one who will inform me what slavery is. There are many provisions of the constitution manifestly repugnant to the claim set up in this case, but it cannot be necessary further to examine the subject. It is said that the abolitionists wish to abolish slavery in this District, in order that they may have a proximate and convenient position in which to carry on their future operations against the South. The petitioners are represented as saying, "give us whereon to stand, and we will move the [southern] world." Any person casting his eye on a map of the country, and noticing the length of line by which Virginia and Maryland are now bounded by non-slaveholding States, will probably think they must be miserable engineers to suppose this little spot of ten miles square can afford much aid to the accomplishment of their plans. The abolition of slavery in this District would probably have very little effect on the slaves, or on slavery, in any of the States. Another ground of complaint, urged by several genlemen in the course of the debate, is this: It is said that he essays of the abolitionists have for their object the xcitement of uneasiness and discontent among the slaves, and that their tendency is to produce insurrection and servile war. They further allege that the writing and printing of the essays, being carried on within the limits of independent States, and being injurious to the slaveholding communities, the latter communities have [JAN. 21, 1836. a right to complain of the proceeding, and to demand the suppression of those publications, as libellous and seditious in their nature, by the punishment of their authors. This complaint deserves serious attention. It presents for consideration questions of great and acknowledged difficulty. That a person standing on one side of the line between two States, may, in various ways, inflict an injury on a person on the other side of the line, and that the guilty party is justly punishable; that, in many cases which may be imagined, he ought not to be protected, and would not be protected, in any well-ordered State, would seem not to be questionable. Although this case has been stated in the course of the debate, to prove the propriety of the complaint and demand above stated, it does not seem to accomplish the purpose. It remains still necessary to inquire how far the publication above alluded to are wrong in their nature or tendency, and how far, if wrong, it is practicable to correct the wrong. I trust, sir, that the northern Legislatures, and people generally, desire faithfully to observe the federal compact, and as faithfully to perform all the duties of good neighborhood. Gentlemen from the South, I suppose, will admit the impropriety of asking from northern Legislatures the enactment of laws such as, under like circum. stances, the southern Legislatures would refuse to sanction. Obligations of the kind in question, if they exist, are reciprocal. It is said that the principles of international law require this interposition on the part of the northern States. There doubtless are precedents, in great abundance, for indictments and punishments of real or supposed seditious, fanatical, and treasonable publications. The eminent scholar and philanthropis', Dr. Channing, the pride and the boast of his countrymen, one of the great lights of the age, who has been so peculiarly noticed by the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. PICKENS,] has heretofore written several essays, any one of which would, under the reign of Henry VIII. or of either of his daughters, have carried him to the stake. The pioneer of truth, he who, in advance of his cotemporaries, discovers and fearlessly advocates the cause of truth, will often find that, like a soldier in an enemy's country in advance of his corps, he is concentrating on himself the missiles of the foe. It is not enough, however, to cite precedents in distant ages, or in countries where principles of government, essentially different from our own, are in operation. Authorities, to avail as authorities, must be generally approved in our own age and country. One case, and one case only, has been cited to prove this law and practice. It is the case of the indictment, in England, of Peltier, on the complaint of Bonaparte's minister. The gentleman who cites this case [Mr. HAMMOND] says, "If England, where more battles have been fought for the liberty of speech and the press than in any portion of the world, felt bound to indict a journalist for libelling her greatest enemy-the enemy of the whole human race--is it unreasonable to ask you to extend the same justice to the grossly slandered and deeply injured people of the South?" It would be very easy to adduce almost any number of precedents of indictments and punishments, found and inflicted for libels on Governments, or for seditious writings. That such precedents exist, by no means proves what must be proved, to lay a just foundation for the complaint in question, which is, that, at the present day, the southern States would themselves prescribe to their own citizens such laws as they require to be enacted at the North. In the above-cited case of Peltier it ought to appear that bis punishment (if sentence had been awarded and punishment inflicted) was approved by the public voice of the citizens of free States. The gentleman did not state whether, after a deliberate consideration of the argument of Peltier's counsel, he thinks his punishment would have been approved by the gentleman, who cited the case, himself. A {H. of R. of politics, morals, or religion? Could the Legislature of that State, by any act of legislation, succeed in preventing the citizens of that State from a full and free expression of opinion; or deter them from a fearless discussion of any subject pertaining to the public welfare; or hinder their advocating any plan for the advancement of the greatest good of the greatest number, however wild or heretical? It may be presumptuous in an inhabitant of another State to express an opinion on the subject; but it is believed they could as easily, by legislation, exclude the tide waters from their own Chesapeake. Suppose the language above cited from the gentleman's speech had been used, not in public debate, but had been printed by him in the reign of Bonaparte, and application had been made by Bonaparte's minister to the Government of the United States, or of South Carolina, to institute a prosecution against him for the words, as libellous: who can believe that the application would have been successful? Yet what could have been said of that tyrant worse than that "he was the enemy of the whole human race?" I do not mean to say or to intimate that this language is unjust. Far from it. Language I have thus far, Mr. Speaker, proceeded on the supof like import was used concerning him by persons, and position that the abolitionists are wholly in error in their in instances innumerable, in every State of the Union, theory; and I do not intend at present to discuss the and probably in every month from his accession to the question, whether slavery is a blessing or a curse, nor throne to the day of his departure for St. Helena. whether the abolitionists be fanatical or rational. Supsimilar statement might be made concerning each of the pose, then, that there is an opaque body at the North, successive Governments of France, for many years sub-radiating darkness" on the regions of the South, and sequent to 1789. What remarks have we heard in this producing unreasonable discontent in a portion of the debate concerning the treatment of Ireland by the Eng- inhabitants: what ought to be done? A band of furies lish Government? Charges of tyranny, of oppression, in Paris, in the reign of Robespierre, were hurrying a of unrelenting cruelty, have been uttered, repeated, and victim to their common gallows, (the lantern post,) and reiterated, in the public prints of our country, with all were about to execute on him what (in some sections of the force and in all the forms which the English language our country) is called Lynch law, on account of some can supply. While this language has here been used, real or supposed heretical opinion on the subject of numerous insurrections and rebellions have broken out government, when the object of their rage saved his and been suppressed, with more or less bloodshed, in life by proposing the pertinent question to those who Ireland. Yet who has heard of an indictment in this held him in custody, whether they expected to see any country for a libel of the British Government? Would better, after they should have suspended him at the southern juries consent to indict and convict their fellow- lantern post, than before? citizens for this liberty of speech or of the press, as an offence at common law, or by the law of nations? Would southern legislators prohibit the utterance, with perfect freedom, of any opinion concerning any Government on earth? The members of the holy alliance have not always been spoken of as perfectly "holy" by Americans. Probably no one here has been very apprehensive of punishment on this account. The present Chief Magistrate of South Carolina, a gentleman who has often instructed and delighted not only his auditors in this hall, but the people of this nation, has recently, in an official communication to the Legislature of his State, given utterance to sentiments which, carried to their legitimate, practical consequences, would produce great and radical changes in the Government of every northern State, and, if received as true, would produce as much discontent among the inhabitants of the North as any thing which has been uttered by any northern abolitionist could produce at the South. Now, should a northern man ask for an indictment against any citizen of South Carolina for uttering similar sentiments, either orally or in print, he would be thought insane. Yet the difference between the two cases is this: In one case, those on whom the unfavorable influence is to be exerted cannot generally read any thing which is written, whether good or bad. In the other case, those who are to be affected can read, and do habitually read, whatever is written on public affairs. In the one case, liberty and its institutions are brought in question; in the other, slavery and its concomitants are the subjects of discussion. An instance of legislation on the subject of seditious writings has occurred in the Government of the United States. What was the opinion of that law generally at the South need not be stated. It certainly was not such as to render it probable that any statute regulation of the press, as far as expression of opinions on subjects of public interest should be concerned, would soon be attempted. Could any Legislature of the State of Virginia, for instance, be induced to prohibit, by statute, the most full and free expression of opinion on any subject, either What, Mr. Speaker, is the antagonist principle, or the appropriate corrective, of speculative error? Is it physical force? Will you enact a bill of pains and penalties for absurd reasoning, or hypocritical cant? Will you punish, as criminal, false inferences in regard to facts, in newspapers or pamphlets? The practice would be new in this country. A late King of France tried an experiment there, within a few years, on the freedom of the press; the result need not be stated. It is universally admitted that, in this country, there are newspapers in great numbers so conducted that their statements scarcely afford the slightest presumption in favor of their truth; yet, for the sake of the incalculable benefit to be derived on the whole from a free press, the immense evil is tolerated, and probably will be tolerated. The slander of individuals depends on different principles, and will be punished by grand juries and traverse juries. Seldom, however, I believe, will an attempt be successfully made to punish, by indictment, any one for any writing professing to have in view the advancement of the public good, on account of its seditious nature or tendency. I do not mean to assert that a case never has occurred in which this has been judiciously done, nor that it can never be done hereafter; but it does seem that a careful examination of the cases in which this has been attempted will not lead to a conclusion very favorable to them. What, then, is to be done? It is asked, when was fanaticism put down by reasoning? I answer, that it has, probably, been put down by reasoning as often as by force. If honest but mistaken men are to be opposed, let the sword lie still in the scabbard, and take up the pen. Southern gentlemen will not distrust their own power to meet argument with argument, when truth is on their side. I am quite sure that some of the southern gentlemen will admit the inexpediency and injustice of sending a man to become cool within the walls of a prison, merely because he has been a little too much heated in debate. If mere fanaticism is in ques. tion, the most effectual antidote is neglect. If, in two centuries, there has been but one insurrection among the slaves of the South, it is difficult to believe that gen tlemen have not over-estimated the danger to be apprehended from that source, in consequence of any essays to be sent from the North. The southern States can make such provision, as to them shall seem expedient, for the punishment of any person, from whatever quarter of the world he may come, who shall be found attempting to instigate their slaves to insurrection and rebellion. If any such person shall suffer, having been fairly tried for his offence, he will probably suffer with little more sympathy than others excite who suffer for their crimes. I have no more of an inclination than I have of a right to dogmatize on this threadbare subject. Perhaps my views are wholly wrong. It may appear, within some few months, that northern legislators will find no difficulty in accomplishing what is required of them; or, if they should meet difficulties, some southern statesmen may suggest a method of obtaining their object, which, upon examination, will be approved by the public voice. If so, all freemen will rejoice that, at length, that great desideratum in legislation is supplied--a method of effectually suppressing the licentiousness of the press, without infringing its liberty. It it readily granted that it is scarcely possible for man to inflict a greater evil on his fellow-man than is inflicted by the malicious or thoughtless dissemination of falsehood, But can human tribunals so distinguish between the different classes of writers, as to send one class to the penitentiary, and give due rewards to the other? That this can in no instance be done, is not affirmed. The experience of the world thus far, however, would seem to apply to this case generally the mandate--"let both grow together until the harvest." Before Mr. HOAR had concluded his speech, as given entire above, Mr. GRENNELL moved an adjournment, but gave way for the Speaker to present the following message from the President of the United States: WASHINGTON, January 20, 1836. [JAN. 22, 1836. bill were not made till after the adjournment of Congress, or, in other words, that they were never made at all. At this time, when he had higher game in view, he would not condescend to notice this statement at all, but for the consideration to which he had alluded. And he now noticed it only for the purpose of pronouncing it false, and to state that, when an opportunity offered for going into a discussion of the loss of the appropriation bill in question, there would not only be one, but many, of both parties in this House, who would feel it their duty to vindicate the proceedings of this body in relation to that affair from any reflections which had been, or might be, cast upon them. Mr. J. Q. ADAMS rose and said: Mr. Speaker, in connexion with this subject, I desire the consent of the House to offer a resolution; I ask that it may be read. The resolution, which is in the following terms, was then read, Resolved, That so much of the message of the President of the United States to Congress at the commencement of the present session as relates to the failure, at the last session of Congress, of the bill containing the ordinary appropriations for fortifications, be referred to a select committee, with instructions to inquire into, and report to this House, the causes and circumstances of the failure of the bill. Objection having been made, Mr. MILLER, of Pennsylvania, moved a suspension of the rule. Mr. VANDERPOEL called for the yeas and nays on that motion; which were ordered by the House. And the question on the motion to suspend was then taken, and decided in the affirmative: Yeas 129, nay's 60. So the House determined to suspend the rule. Mr. WILLIAMS, of North Carolina, then offered the following amendment to the resolution: "And that the said committee be authorized to send for persons and papers.' words: SIR: I herewith transmit to the House of Representa-ident's message which relates to this subject is in these Mr. ADAMS then proceeded. That part of the Pres tives a report from the director of the mint, exhibiting the operations of that institution during the year 1835. The report contains also some very useful suggestions as to certain changes in the laws connected with our coinage, and with that establishment, which are recommended to your early attention. Besides some remarks in it on the progress made in the erection of the branch mints, and procuring machinery therefor, I enclose a report from the Secretary of the Treasury, submitting more detailed statements as to the new buildings, from each of the agents appointed to superintend the erection. Hon. JAS. K. POLK, ANDREW JACKSON. Speaker of the House of Representatives. On motion of Mr. CAMBRELENG, the message was referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, and ordered to be printed; and then The House adjourned. . FRIDAY, JANUARY 22. FORTIFICATION BILL OF LAST SESSION. Mr. CAMBRELENG rose and claimed the indulgence of the House for a few moments, while he noticed an attack made in one of the morning journals [supposed to be the United States Telegraph] upon himself. would not notice it, but for the reason that it was an He attack, not only upon himself, but also upon the House, in relation to a question now before the Senate. The paper to which he referred stated that his (Mr. C's) published remarks upon the three million appropriation "Much loss and inconvenience have been experienced in consequence of the failure of the bill containing passed one branch of the national Legislature at the last the ordinary appropriations for fortifications, which session, but was lost in the other. This failure was the rupted and delayed the progress of a system of national more regretted, not only because it necessarily interdefence, projected immediately after the last war, and contingent appropriation inserted in accordance with since steadily pursued, but also because it contained a the views of the Executive in aid of this important object, and other branches of the national defence, some portions of which might have been most usefully applied during the past session." I think this is all that is said in the message upon the subject. I have offered the resolution for the appointment of a committee, with instructions to inquire into and report the facts relating to the loss of this bill, principally in consequence of what has occurred in another place on this same subject, in which not only the facts stated by the President in this part of his message have been denied to be true- sions to the proceedings of the Senate were not in order. The SPEAKER (interrupting Mr. A.) said that alluorder to preserve harmony between the two branches of It was indispensable that this rule should be observed, in the Legislature. ly disposed to observe the rules established for the inMr. ADAMS continued. Mr. Speaker, I am perfectand I will go no further in relation to any thing which tercourse between the two Houses of the Legislature, has taken place in the Senate than those rules authorize. Sir, the House has heard me say that I offered this resolution in consequence of what has occured in another place. I do not say that place was the Senate of the United States; that is a matter which any gentleman in this House is competent to determine for himself. I say this, because, although I am fully aware that any allusion to what is going on in the other branch of the Legislature is not in accordance with the formal rule of the House, yet it is perfectly well known that not a debate of any importance occurs in this House, but that a practical reference and allusion is made to it in the Senate; and because, however, this formal rule may be carried into force and effect upon ordinary occasions, if it is not to be subject to any exceptions whatever, it must take from me the possibility of stating the real grounds upon which I ask for the appointment of this committee. I say, therefore, that I do not refer nominally to what has taken place in the Senate, but I do refer to what has taken place elsewhere. And I shall proceed, sir, and continue to make reference to what has occurred in that place, so long as it shall please the Speaker and the House to allow me to proceed. The SPEAKER said he merely gave the intimation, that no reference to the proceedings of the Senate was allowed. He had the authority before him. Mr. REED, of Massachusetts. Will the Speaker read his authority? Loud cries of "order! go on! go on!" Mr. ADAMS continued. Sir, in another placeMr. MERCER, of Virginia, called to order. The member from Massachusetts said he did not nominally refer to the Senate. If, however, he did so intentionally, he was equally out of order. Mr. MERCER desired to confine the attention of the Chair and the House to the language already used by the member from Massachusetts. Now was the time to decide whether the latter gentleman might be permitted to proceed; that is to say, whether he did not intentionally allude to the Senate, although not so nominally, by using the word "place" instead of "Senate." [H. OF R. the honor to read, was untrue, but that the failure of the appropriation bill was not caused in the Senate; that it did not fail there, but that it failed in another House. Where was that, sir? Was it this House? No, sir; that House exists no longer; but it was in this hall; and this House, which is now here, consists in a very great measure, of the identical individuals who composed that House. One hundred and forty members of that House are also members of this; and in the "National Intelligencer" I find it charged, not only that the failure of this bill was owing to the fault of that House, but "that it died there, and that there its bones are to be sought." I find it also charged that, in the process of losing that bill, and in the introduction of that portion of it which caused its failure, the most violent attacks were committed upon the constitution of the United States by the President and by that House, in conspiracy together. Sir, it is admitted, upon all hands, I believe, and upon all sides, that the failure of that bill was occasioned, materially, by the introduction of a section in which three millions of dollars were appropriated, under the circumstances in which the country then found itself, for the defence of the country; and the President tells us that the failure of that appropriation bill, and of that particular item of appropriation, is now a subject of great inconvenience to the people of this country. Upon this subject, sir, an issue has been taken in the "National Intelligencer." That issue involves not merely the President of the United States, but it involves this House. Sir, there is an additional reason why I wish for a committee to inquire into this matter. That reason, in itself, I hope, will be sufficient inducement for every memThe SPEAKER said he could not anticipate what the ber of this House, who feels his own honor implicated in member from Massachusetts intended to say. The mo- the charges against it, to call for this investigation, to ment he made a remark in violation of the rule, the have the subject exposed before the nation, and to show Chair would enforce the observance of it. The Speak- where the failure is to be truly charged. I have reer here read the rule of the House applicable to the sub-peatedly said, in this House, that I consider the first duty ject, and again apprized Mr. A. that all allusions to the of every branch of the Government is to harmonize with Senate were out of order. every other branch in the transaction of the business of the people; that the first duty of every member of the House of Representatives is to support the President of the United States, to support the Executive Government of the country in every measure belonging properly to its high office, in every measure in which the judgment of the individual acting can support the proceedings of the Executive. I have repeatedly said that, in like manner, it was equally his duty to support the measures which pass in the other branch of the Legislature, and that this duty is reciprocally obligatory upon the Senate and the House of Representatives. This I have always considered as the first duty of every person concerned in the administration of the Government, whether in the legislative or executive branches. There is another subsequent duty, by which each of these three branches is made a guardian and sentinel over the acts of the other, and in which it may be their duty (and a painful one it must be at all times) to oppose any measure, be it of the Executive or the other branches of the Legislature, which they may think inconsistent with the consti The SPEAKER said, before a decision could be had, the exceptionable words must be committed to writing. Mr. MERCER deferred his point of order for the present. Mr. ADAMS continued. I will endeavor, so far as my humble ability will permit me, to avoid any collision, not only with the letter, but with the spirit of the rule to which the gentleman from Virginia has appealed; and I will transfer the location of the "place" where these things to which I shall be under the necessity of referring have happened, from the Senate of the United States (if the gentlemen thinks proper to fix upon the Senate as the place to which I allude) to the office of the "National Intelligencer." If the gentleman from Vir-tution, or with the interests of the people. Harmony ginia has any objection to that Mr. MERCER. I object to any quibbling calculated to produce a collision between this House and the Senate. Cries of" order! order!" after which, Mr. ADAMS continued. In the "National Intelligencer," the newspaper of the official printer of the Senate of the United States, (I hope I am not out of order in that,) there is published a report of proceedings which have taken place in a certain quarter; and in that paper I find it charged, not only that the statement in the message of the President of the United States, which I had between the two branches of the Legislature is of extreme importance; harmony between the legislative branches and the Executive is scarcely less important. Now, sir, in the transactions of that day, or rather of that night, circumstances occurred between the two branches of the Legislature, which I deem proper objects of inquiry for a committee of this House. I allude simply at this time to two of them which relate to this very bill. This appropriation of three millions of dollars for the defence of the country was inserted in the general appropriation bill, by an amendment proposed by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. CAMBRELENG,] proposed in consequence of a resolution which had passed unanimously in this House the night before, and in which the House declared, by that unanimous vote, "that the execution of the treaty of the 4th of July, 1831, with France, should be insisted on." It was well known to every member of this House, and I believe, also, it was known to every person in the city out of this House, that the appropriation of three millions of dollars was introduced into the appropriation bill in consequence of the vote which had passed the night before. It is well known (and I see the faces of a hundred persons who know it as well as I do; for they were present at the debates which took place, and which occupied a week, or nearly ten days, before that vote was taken) that that resolution, which finally passed by a unanimous vote, was contested in the most ardent manner, on the ground that it would give occasion for a war. If you Look to that resolution as it passed, and to the resolutions which were offered as substitutes, you will perceive that the resolution was debated with the most extreme animation, and that it was opposed and resisted on the ground that it would bring the nation into a war. Well, sir, under these circumstances, although the House did not give just occasion for war by the adoption of that resolution, how was it possible for statesmen, looking to the interests of their country, not to perceive, from the opposition and resistance which had been made previous to the unanimous vote on the resolution, that those arguments, being conjectural, and looking into future events, might possibly be correct; and that it was proper and right that this country should be put upon its defences, and into an attitude to meet and sustain the resolution which they had unanimously passed? This is the ground upon which that item of appropriation was introduced into the general appropriation bill upon the last day of the session. And why upon the last day? Because it was only on the night before, nearly at midnight, that the vote had passed; not a single day was to be lost. In all this debate in the "National Intelligencer" there is no more trace of such a resolution passing this House, than if it had never existed; no more trace than could be found on the journal of the Senate of what they would have done to defend the country, or to insist upon the execution of the treaty. Now, in this debate in the National Intelligencer, I find a prodigious display of eloquence, to show that it was unconstitutional to introduce this section, appropriating the three millions, because it had not been recommended by the President. Mr. MERCER called to order. Loud cries of "go on!" "go on!" Mr. HARDIN, of Kentucky, hoped the gentleman would withdraw his point of order, and permit the member from Massachusetts to be heard to the last. Mr. MERCER gave in writing the exceptionable words, namely, that it had been contended that the "section appropriating the three millions was unconstitutional," &c., thus referring to a late debate in the Senate of the United States. He made this call to order with great regret. In the present position of this country, it was of great importance to preserve comity and harmony in the intercourse between the two Houses. In the present crisis of our affairs, this was, more than ever, of indispensable importance. The SPEAKER said that the words objected to would be read; the member using them might deny them, and then the House would decide whether they were the words or not. Did the member from Massachusetts deny them? Mr. ADAMS. The gentleman from Virginia expressed a great aversion to quibbling on this subject, and in order to avoid Cries of "order!" [JAN. 22, 1836. were so crowded, and the noise so great, that he could not hear what was going forward. The SPEAKER insisted on members retaining their seats. Mr. ADAMS. Do I understand that the Speaker calls upon me to say whether those are my words or not? The SPEAKER. Such is the course prescribed by the rules. Mr. ADAMS. I say then that, in order to keep perfectly within the rules, I did some time ago do away with any possibility of the application of my remarks to the Senate of the United States, by transferring them to the "National Intelligencer." I did not say, if I recollect right, although in the warmth of debate I cannot remember every single expression I have used, that this publication in the "National Intelligencer" was a debate in the Senate. I said there was a report of a debate in that paper, and that I referred to whatever charge there was in that. I therefore wish that the correction may be made, that the words "Senate of the United States" may be stricken out, so that there may not be on the minutes any formal allusion to the Senate. Mr. MERCER recapitulated the substance of Mr. ADAMS's words, as they were understood by himself. Mr. ADAMS said the gentleman from Virginia had arrived at his meaning, but not at his words. The SPEAKER called to order. He did, Mr. ADAMS said he wished to say a word. on recollection, remember that he had introduced the word "Senate" in his observations, but it was not in relation to any thing now passing in the Senate. He alluded to what occurred at the last session of Congress; and such allusion as this, he considered, came within the compass of the rule. He had as much right to refer to what occurred at the last session, as he had to any circumstance in history. If not, he must retract his words, and say these things occurred elsewhere. He had no recollection of using the word "Senate," or of referring to it, except as to what occurred at the last session; and what occurred then was now on the journal of the Senate. Mr. MERCER said that if the member from Massachusetts intended to refer exclusively to the proceedings in the Senate of the last session, he (Mr. M.) would withdraw his point of order. Mr. ADAMS said he was extremely unfortunate in not being able to make himself understood. He did not say that he referred exclusively to the last session of Congress; he said he did not name the Senate, after the objection made by the member from Virginia, as to what was doing at this time. As to what had been done now, he referred to what appeared in the " Intelligencer," let it be where it might, in the Senate or any where else. But he did allude to what took place in the Senate the last session of Congress; and if he might not do this, he had as well sit down quietly and take the vote upon his resolution; for it appeared, from what was done at the last session, that the constitutional question was connected with the subject of his resolu tion. Mr. MERCER renewed his point of order. Mr. WISE hoped the gentleman from Massachusetts would be permitted to proceed, in order or out of or der. If ever there was a time when the whole truth ought to be told, touch whom it might, the Senate, the House of Representatives, the President of the United States, the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, or any other person, now was that time. Let the House have a fair chance now to hear the truth, and he begged that every gentleman would be permitted to tell all he knew, and of whom he knew it. The SPEAKER said the objectionable words would Mr. PARKER said that the avenues of the House be read; which having been done, |