average year since the commencement of the administration of General Jackson. This excess may be considered by this House as a war measure, and will be so viewed by the nation and the world. These bills were, by an order of the House, at the instance of the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, made the special order of each day until they are all disposed of. The first bill taken up was that appropriating money for the navy; the House went into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Uuion on that bill. A war speech was made by the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, in his usual bustling, swelling manner. Several other speeches followed; and, towards evening, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. BYNUM] commenced a warm, animated, and eloquent, speech in favor of the bill, in a high-tone war spirit. The speech was about half finished when the gentleman gave place for a motion for the committee to rise, as it was late in the evening. Next day, the hole House came prepared to enter with spirit into the discussion of our relations with France, and all the measures which were about to be taken connected therewith. The party of the little Kinderhook hero seemed brimful of fight. We had been denounced, the evening before, by the gentleman from North Carolina, as the French party, which he declared now existed in this nation. The imputation we considered as unmerited, and intended to vindicate ourselves from so foul an accusation. Never did this House assemble in a higher state of excitement than was manifested on the next day: it was expected that the debate would progress with increased animation, and many a parliamentary lance would be hurled, broken, and shivered into pieces. The galleries were crowded at an early hour. When the time arrived for the House again to go into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union on the navy bill, the gentleman from New York [Mr. CAMBRELENG] moved to dispense with the orders of the day, to take up the bill to relieve the sufferers by fire in New York. The motion prevailed; the orders of the day were dispensed with; the navy bill was laid down, and the bill to relieve the sufferers by fire in New York taken up. Some progress was made in that bill; but, before it was finished-nay, hardly commenced-the House adjourned. The next day, the House was not permitted to begin where it had stopped. No; what, then, was the course of business? The same gentleman from New York, [Mr. CAMBRELENG,]-who is the leader of the Jackson-Van Buren party in this House, or, if not the leader, is put in a position by the Speaker to lead-got up, addressed the House, and then read or alluded to a paragraph in a newspaper, which, he said, had attacked him personally; as if this House had any thing to do with the newspaper controversies of the honorable gentleman. As usual, he pompously commenced a vindication of himself; but, before he had uttered more than one or two sentences, wound up by saying that the source from which the alleged slander came was beneath his notice and unworthy of him. I beg the House not to forget that, at the same time, he intimated that the subject referred to in the paper would be brought before the House in another shape by the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. ADAMS,] who instantly took the floor with the resolution now under debate in his hand, already cut out and made up to order. The rules of the House were again dispensed with, the gentleman from New York voting for it, and the present resolution was offered. I will not say that there was a secret understanding between those two gentlemen that the resolution should be brought before the House in this very extraordinary and unprecedented manner. The reason I will not aver that to be the fact is, because I do not know it; yet, there seemed to me to be something inexplicable in [H. OF R. the matter, if there was no such understanding. Why did he rise, allude to the paragraph, and stop short, without proceeding with his vindication? He was too well acquainted with the rules of this House not to know that he was out of order. I have asked, and again repeat it, why, after he had commenced his defence, did he stop? and why did he intimate that the gentleman from Massachusetts would bring that subject before the House in another form? They must have conferred together, and the whole was a manoeuvre to enable the gentleman from Massachusetts to exhibit his resolution; which I consider an indictment, with one count against the members in this House who voted against the three million appropriation last session, another count against the majority in the Senate; but these two counts are only nominal; the real intent and meaning of the whole is to reach two of the honorable Senators, [Messrs. WHITE and WEBSTER,] who are now before the people as candidates for the presidency. It looks like a Van Buren trick; the hand of the magician is surely in this whole matter. If the gentleman from Massachusetts is capable of blushing or feeling one sensation of shame, that blush or sensation ought to be exhibited upon the present occasion. I call upon him to review his past life, the high and dignified offices he has filled, during a space of fifty years, with so much credit to himself and honor to the nation; and now but to behold his present fallen condition--the instrument of a vile intrigue. Self-debasement and degradation is a fatality which fre quently awaits the inordinate ambition of an old manthat ambition which outlives his faculties. Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will pardon me for this short digression. I will proceed with the history of this resolution, and its progress in the House up to the present time. The gentleman from Massachusetts, in support of it, addressed the House for nearly three hours, in a most elaborate speech, alike famous for its length, violence, and vituperation of his former political friends; filled to overflowing with the bitterest invective. Some of his remarks I intend to notice hereafter. He was followed by the honorable gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. WISE,] who addressed the House at length on the opposite side; and who, in his speech, exhibited great industry, research, and talents. But the ability he displayed, although very great, did not so much attract my admiration as his bold and manly bearing in delivering his sentiments. He forcibly reminded me of what that stern republican Roman said: that A day, an hour, of virtuous liberty When the gentleman from Virginia resumed his seat, the honorable chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, [Mr. CAMBRELENG,] with great pomp and pa rade, took the floor, and announced what he intended to do when he should address the House. He said it was too late to proceed that evening; but, before he moved an adjournment, with great arrogance declared he would not reply to the gentleman from Virginia; that he intended to encounter a champion more worthy of his steel-alluding to Mr. WEBSTER, of the Senate. I admired his courage; and felicitated myself that my eyes, at least once in my life, would be gratified by a sight of the battle of giants. There was something to command my admiration in his high resolves; it was a laudable ambition, even if he perished in the conflict. I love to see men matched fairly: let footman fight with footman, squire with squire, knight couch the lance and spur the fiery steed against knight: Fingal never left his rock and mixed in the strife of heroes, until I.athmon was in the field. When the gentleman took the floor on yesterday, I expected efforts commensurate with the undertaking; I listened to hear Jupiter thundering from Olympus's cloudy tops, or, if not the thunder of Jove, at least the music of the spheres. But was there ever man so disappointed! Instead of the grandeur, magnificence, and sublimity, of thunder rolling along and shaking the earth from pole to pole, my ears were grated with the miserable sounds of a wretch. ed performer on a Jew's harp! If an enlightened stranger were to visit this city during the sitting of Congress, and attend to the debates in the Senate and here, how this House would suffer in the comparison! If he should chance to hear the chairman of the Committee on Finance in the Senate [Mr. WEBSTER] developing, in his usual lucid manner, complicated questions of finance, and unfolding the almost exhaustless, although somewhat hidden, resources of this nation; and, after that, come into this hall, and hear the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means on the same subject; whether the efforts of the great moneyed officer of this House would most excite his laughter or contempt, I cannot tell: the sublime and ludicrous are so nearly allied. His feelings would be not unlike those of an amateur of the great and awful workings of nature, who had just been a spectator of Vesuvius or Etna in the ap. palling grandeur of a tremendous eruption, and then turning on the plain below, and seeing a mole or anthill emitting a pale smoke, and occasionally a feeble and sickly blaze. Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of this House, or the Legislature of Kentucky, for nearly twenty-five years. I do not profess to have an intimate acquaintance with the rules and regulations which govern, or rather ought to govern, parliamentary bodies; yet I do profess to know enough of the order of proceeding as will enable me to do, and understand how to transact, the business confided to me either by my constituents or this House. I never made more of the rules my study than was needful for the doing of business. My ambitious aspirations have never been directed towards the Speaker's chair. I cannot give in to the modern doctrine, that, if the force of party, or the desire to propitiate the White House, should take a man from amongst us who is not above the mediocrity of this House, and make him Speaker, he thereby becomes one of the wise men of this land: it is the man who is to do honor to the chair, and not the chair to do honor to the man; if he does not fill it, his littleness, by his elevation, only becomes more visible and striking. If the same man, when in the chair, should select a man be. low the mediocrity of this House, and put him at the head of the most important committee, I am equally disinclined to believe that he thereby becomes a very Daniel of a man." Sir, since Elijah went to heaven in a chariot of fire, and cast his mantle on Elisha, and he thereby became a prophet, God has not vouchsafed for any other man on this earth to be thus gifted. Mr. Speaker, I declare to this House that such a resolution as the present I never before saw. Does it propose any thing for the action of this House? I answer, no. Does it present any thing for the action of the Senate? It does not. We are to raise a committee in this House to inquire and report why a certain bill, which was before Congress at the last session, did not pass. Let the committee report as it may, no action of this House can be based thereon or grow out of it. Can we impeach the members of the Senate, or of the last House of Representatives, who voted against the three million appropriation? Every man in this House knows we cannot. [JAN. 28, 1836. It will be filled with bitter denunciations of his former political friends and associates, to conciliate the opposite party, and make his peace at the palace. I have no doubt the report will not exhibit any one fact exactly as it took place: to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, is far from the object of the gen tleman concerned in this matter. A war is to be made on the Senators, to cheapen and lessen their standing with the people of the United States. Messrs. WEBSTER and WHITE are to be assailed without mercy in the report, and food furnished for all the administration presses in the Union, next summer, to abuse those who voted against the appropriation in either House. I ask, does it become the dignity of this august assembly, the wisest and freest on earth, to degrade itself for such a vile purpose-the inglorious one of becoming panders to collect and imbody slander for the office-holders and office-hunters, some of whom are now feeding, and others expect shortly to feed, upon "the spoils" of this nation, as if we were a conquered enemy; and who are the only self-styled, self-created democracy of the country--a word justly dear to a republican, and only used, in these degenerate days, by designing knaves, to flatter and deceive the people? I boldly and fearlessly pronounce the resolution to be unparliamentary, unprecedented, and disgraceful to those concerned in it. No man can misunderstand its object: it is an inquisition of entitling for Van Buren. If, Mr. Speaker, I had no other reasons than those I have this moment assigned, I would vote against the resolution. If the gentleman from Massachusetts wishes to cut a somerset, let him do it as a clown in the pit: do not give him a spring-plank to leap from; I want to see him turn a somerset as a ground, not a lofty tumbler: he is not unaccustomed to these things; he has frequently done it before, without the aid of a committee, and let him do it again. I will endeavor now to give a brief and rapid sketch of the history of the fortification bill, as it is called, and of the three million appropriation attached to it, by way of amendment, in the last stages of the progress of the bill. The fortification bill was reported to this House by the proper committee; and, after remaining here some fifty days, it passed, and was sent to the Senate for the action of that body. The appropriations in the bill, at that time, amounted to $559,000; this being the sum then deemed sufficient by the Department of War. The bill was sent to the Senate, and there met the prompt attention of that body. It passed the Senate with amendments making additional appropriations to the fortifications of the country to the amount of $430,000; making $989,000. On the last day of the session, the bill, as amended, came from the Senate for the concurrence of this House in the Senate's amendments. If the friends of the administration only wanted the fortification bill, all they had to do was to agree to the amendments of the Senate. It contained $430,000 more than was asked for originally by the President and War Department, and more than the usual and customary annual appropriations for the same objects. The annual appropriations for fortifications since the war amount, each year, to these sums: Appropriations for fortifications since the treaty of Ghent. For 1814, $552,999 43 For 1822, $385,679 86 481,692 67 514,816 25 729,783 05 Fortification Bill of Last Session. $871,044 00 100,000 00 $13,770,472 84 But on the last day of the session, and about sunset on that day, did the gentleman from New York [Mr. CAMBRELENG] move to agree to the Senate's amendments, with an amendment; which amendment contained the famous three million appropriation. Had the President sent us any communication on the subject? No. Had we heard that the War Department wanted it? No. Some few favorites, it seems, had been so informed; but they kept it a profound secret. Why did they not communicate it to the House, if it was an executive measure? If General Jackson desired the money, for the purposes of carrying on the Government, why not say so? He has never heretofore been backward in telling us what he wished done. Did he want the money, and yet not dare "to assume the responsibility" of asking for it? Upon all these subjects of information we were left in the dark. The Executive of this and every other Government informs the legislative department what amount of money is necessary to carry on the Government; and the legislative department is never in fault, until they refuse to appropriate the money after it is demanded. The appropriation of the three millions was asked by the gentleman from New York too late for any of us to make inquiry of the President, or the War Department, as to the fitness and propriety of the measure; and, if we had made the inquiry, it is evident no information would have been given; or why did the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means [Mr. PoLK] keep it a secret, and request some few others, who knew that the President wanted the money, not to divulge it? Surely, the leaders of the administration party intended to sport with and mock the House. Mr. Speaker, if there had been no other cause than the want of time and of information on the subject, we did right to vote against the three million appropriation. I, for one, will never give away the money of my constituents, unless I know the why and wherefore it is asked and demanded. About dark, on the last day of the session, the bill went back from this House to the Senate, for the concurrence of that body to the three million appropriation. The Senators had no information of any kind on the subject, either official or informal; they had no time for investigation; they must either vote the money instantly, without light or knowledge on the subject, or reject the appropriation and disagree to our amendment. They, as became sages and patriots, chose the latter alternative: they acted with becoming dignity and manly independence, in true character with themselves. The bill came here with the disagreement of the Senate to our amendment; we insisted, and sent it back to the Senate: the Senate adhered to their disagreement; we again insisted, and asked a committee of conference; and a committee was accordingly appointed. The Senate agreed to the conference, and appointed a committee on their part. The couferees met, and agreed on reducing the three millions to eight hundred thousand dollars; thus making the whole bill contain appropriations to the amount of $1,789,000. After the conferees had agreed, the chairman of the committee on the part of this House [Mr. CAMBRELENG] refused to report to the House, and the whole bill was thereby finally lost. Mr. Speaker, after this short history of the origin and progress of the bill through both Houses, the next inquiry will be, why was the bill lost? and, if there be blame and cause of censure any where, who is in fault? This part of the inquiry has been somewhat anticipated [H. OF R. by what I have already said. I maintain the proposition, that those in this House who voted against the three million appropriation are not to blame, nor can any censure be alleged against the Senate. The administration party had a decided majority in this House, and the complete and entire control of the standing committees; they could bring forward a measure when they pleased, or keep it back as long as they pleased. Then, I ask, nay, demand, why did they not bring forward the proposition for the three million appropriation sooner? Our relations with France were then in about the same situation they had been for some weeks before; no change; no recent information had been received on the subject; there is nothing in the whole matter to justify the withholding the demand for the appropriation to so late a period; and, if it was really lost for want of time, who are answerable for it? The answer is obvious. Those in power, and whose business it was to bring forward the proposition. This House and the Senate acted on the subject with unusual promptitude and despatch. The gentleman from New York has said that the hour of 12 o'clock had arrived before the committee of conference met, and that he believed the House dissolved by the constitution at 12 o'clock. If this was his opinion, why then meet at all? When he was called on for a report from the committee of conference, he gave this constitutional opinion as one of the reasons why he would not report, which reads in these words: "Mr. Cambreleng, the chairman of the conferees on the part of this House, then rose and stated that he declined to make report of the proceedings of the committee of conference aforesaid, on the ground that, from the vote on the resolution granting compensation to Robert P. Letcher, which vote was decided at the time the committee returned into the House from the conference, it was ascertained that a quorum was not present; and, further, that he declined to make the said report on the ground that the constitutional term for which this House had been chosen had expired." I will now, Mr. Speaker, turn the attention of the House to the journal. In page 519, it reads as follows: "A motion was then made by Mr. Hubbard that the House do ask a conference with the Senate on the disa greeing votes of the two Houses on the said amend ment. "And on the question, Will the House ask a conference? "It pas ed in the affirmative. And "Mr. Cambreleng, Mr. Lewis, and Mr. Hubbard, were appointed managers, to conduct the said conference, on the part of this House." The committee of conference was appointed, I think, about 10 o'clock at night. I had the honor of then being a member, and an attentive observer of all that passed. The House then went on to do business to such an extent as to fill up two pages and a half of the journal, when the Cumberland road bill was taken up; and on that bill two of the committee of conference, Messrs. Cambreleng and Hubbard, voted in the negative; see journal, page 522. It will be perceived that, at this time, the comImittee of conference was in the House and voting. About 1 o'clock A. M., the House voted on the resolution to pay Mr. Letcher his per diem allowance when contesting his seat with Major Moore. Mr. Cambreleng voted on that also; see the journal, page 324. I ask the gentleman from New York, when did the committee of conference meet? He says, after he voted on the resolution to pay Mr. Letcher. I ask him again, if you were in earnest about this whole matter, and intended no trick, why did you not go out before? Why did you stay, after your appointment at 10 o'clock, until one, before you attempted to meet in confer. ence, when, from your own statement, you were of opinion the House was dissolved at twelve? Is there not a palpable dereliction of duty in not attending the committee of conference sooner? The fact and truth is, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman was not remiss in meeting in conference. He did go after his appointment, and returned before the Cumberland road bill was taken up; but, not liking the result of the conference, or perhaps from some lurking desire to injure the Senate, and cast the odium of the loss of the bill on that body, would not report. There is, evidently, a piece of political jugglery in this whole business; and the gentleman from New York and his confederates were the prime movers and actors in the whole scene. The gentleman says that there was no time to hold the conference, after his appointment, until the Cumberland road bill was taken up. I repeat again, what I have said before, that there was business transacted, enough to fill two and a half pages of the journal; and three speeches were made-one by the gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. ASHLEY,] to take up a bill relative to his State; and two by gentlemen from Mary land, against the bill from the Senate which abolished the Maryland and Delaware judicial circuit. That reason of the gentleman is unfounded in fact. The gentleman has one of the two horns of the dilemma to take either to stand convicted of not going to conference until after twelve o'clock, when he then believed the House dissolved; and going after that time and conferring, when he admits he had no power to act as a member: the other alternative is, that he went in time, returned in time, and then refused to make the report. So, take it any way that the question can be presented, the loss of the bill is attributable to the gentleman from New York, and none else. The gentleman has one pleasing consolation left to him; he stands, in relation to this House, and this great and wide-spreading republic, in the same position that the ancients believed Mount Atlas did towards the heavens--he can bear it all upon his own shoulders. The gentleman from Massachusetts attempts to throw the loss of the bill upon those who believed the House to be constitutionally dissolved at 12 o'clock on the 3d of March last. Although I then entertained that opinion, and acted on it, which opinion I have not since changed; yet, even if we were wrong, the gentleman ought to recollect that that error of opinion does not exculpate the gentleman from New York, [Mr. CAMBRELENG.] I ask the gentleman, [Mr. ADAMS,] if it would not be wise and prudent in him at least to see who is to be most affected by entertaining that opinion! If there be error in it, will it fall heaviest upon your old and now deserted political friends, or your new allies, whom you are now courting with such marked attention and assiduity, and who, after they use you, will not give you your expected and hoped-for reward; no, not even the thirty pieces of silver? General Jackson entertained that opinion, and acted on it; Mr. Van Buren entertained that opinion, as a matter of course-by instinct, I suppose. If my memory serves me right, he held a short conversation in this hall that night with a gentleman from New York, [Mr. BEARDSLEY,] who directly afterwards refused to vote, as appears by the journal, which reads in these words: "A motion was made by Mr. Jarvis, that the House do now adjourn. "And, in deciding the question by yeas and nays, the name of Samuel Beardsley, of New York, being called, he declined to answer, on the ground that the term for which the members of the twenty-third Congress had been elected had expired; and that, according to the constitution of the United States, this House had ceased, at 12 o'clock to-night, to exist. [JAN. 28, 1836. members, and from the Chair, it was informally agreed to pass the name of Mr. Beardsley." This argument of the gentleman from Massachusetts is a two-edged sword, and, when wielded by him, cuts ten of his new associates for one of his old friends. 1, however, do not much censure the gentleman for entertaining the opinion that the President and Congress can each hold their offices, one after the four years, and the other the two years expire. How long after the time shall expire they can continue in office, he does not state; at least long enough, I suppose, to do what they desire, and to finish what they have on hand. This question revives his ancient recollections and reminiscences. I once heard of a President who, between midnight and day, and that, too, after his four years bad expired, made a batch of judges, to reward some of the high-toned federalists of the old school for past services. I have remarked, Mr. Speaker, that I differed on that night with many of my friends about the time when Congress was dissolved by the constitution. If I can obtain the indulgence and patient attention of the House, I will submit a few remarks in support of my opinion. The constitution of the United States, in relation to Representatives, in the second section of the first article, reads in these words: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States; and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature." And, in relation to the election of President, article second, section the first, reads as follows: "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected as follows," &c. The time, place, and manner, of electing Representatives, are, by the constitution, left to the States. The provision on that subject reads in these words: "The times, places, and manner, of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may, at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators." From these provisions in the constitution of the United States, it is clear and manifest that a Representative is elected for two years, and the President for four years. When does the time commence? is the next subject of inquiry. Not at the time of the election, for the Presi dent is elected the fall before the 4th of March; his election is complete when the electors give him a plurality of votes: the mode of ascertaining that fact has nothing to do with the time of election. Representatives are chosen for two years: the two years cannot commence from the time of the election, because the States regulate the times of the election of their respective members, and hardly any two States elect at the same time; conse quently, there would be no uniformity as to the time of commencement or termination of the two years. Frequently members are elected more than a year before the Congress commences of which they are members, and the same man who is elected is, at the time of election, a member of a preceding Congress, and serves one session in it after his election to a succeeding Congress. The constitution did not, in the body of it, say when the time should commence, and when end. The reason is obvious. The convention did not know when nine States would ratify the constitution; and, until then, the time when the Government under it should commence could not be fixed; hence, no time is fixed on in the constitution for the commencement of the Government. "After some remarks and suggestions from various The convention adopted a resolution, in these words: "Resolved, That it is the opinion of this convention that, as soon as the conventions of nine States shall have ratified this constitution, the United States in Congress assembled should fix a day on which electors should be appointed by the States which shall have ratified the same, and a day on which the electors should assemble to vote for the President, and the time and place for commencing proceedings under this constitution. That, after such publication, the electors should be appointed, and the Senators and Representatives elected. That the electors should meet on the day fixed for the election of the President, and should transmit their votes, certified, signed, sealed, and directed, as the constitution requires, to the Secretary of the United States in Congress assembled; that the Senators and Representatives should convene at the time and place assigned; that the Senators should appoint a President of the Senate, for the sole purpose of receiving, opening, and counting, the votes for President; and that, after he shall be chosen, the Congress, together with the President, should, without delay, proceed to execute this constitution." [H. OF R. the seven days completed on Sunday? I am elected for two years: if my time commences on the 4th of March, is it not out on the 3d of March two years thereafter? Let us see how the law computes twenty-one years, the age of maturity, for a man or woman. Blackstone's Commentaries, first volume, page 463, reads in these words: "So that full age in male or female is twenty-one years, which age is completed on the day preceding the anni versary of a person's birth." That the Representative's term of service commences on the 4th of March every two years, and expires on the 3d of March two years afterwards, is a position so plain that none can gainsay it--no one attempts to dispute it. The whole question comes to this at last: when does the 4th of March commence, and when does the 3d of March, two years afterwards, end? The law makes no fraction of a day; the legal time, as universally settled, is, that the day begins at midnight, and ends at midnight: in the computation of time, the law knows no night. Suppose a man were under trial for Sabbath breaking, and the This resolution declared that Congress, when the rat-proof was he broke the Sabbath on Sunday morning beification of nine States took place, should fix on the day tween daybreak and sunrise: would any judge or jury when the Government should commence. Congress let him off, upon the ground that it was on Saturday he did designate the day by a resolution, which reads in these committed the act? Or suppose it was proven that the words: person under trial did the deed alleged against him (say, went to ploughing) on Monday morning, ten minutes before sunrise; would any judge dare say that was Sunday, and he was guilty of Sabbath breaking? Our constitution must be construed as any other part of our law would, for it is a part of the law of the land. This mode of computing time has been long regulated by mankind, and it is now too late to dispute it. "Resolved, That the first Wednesday in January next be the day for appointing electors in the several States which, before the said day, shall have ratified the said constitution; that the first Wednesday in February next be the day for the electors to assemble in their respective States, and vote for a President; and that the first Wednesday in March [4th] next be the time, and the present seat of Congress [New York] the place, for commencing proceedings under the said constitution." The conduct of gentlemen, who contended last session that the computation should be made from sunrise By this resolution of Congress, the 4th of March, 1789, to sunrise, and that Congress could continue its session was the day fixed on by Congress. On that day, the till sunrise the 4th of March, distrusted their own opinpresent Government was to commence under the consti-ion; and it was only as the last alternative that they were tution, and on that day it did commence. The caption to the acts of the first Congress proves that the Government of the United States commenced on the 4th of March, 1789; which caption reads in these words: "Acts of the first Congress of the United States, passed at the first session, which was begun and held at the city of New York, in the State of New York, on Wednesday, March 4, 1789, and ended September 29, in the same year." The 4th of March, 1789, after being fixed on by Congress, in pursuance of a resolution of the convention, is just as binding as if it were inserted in the constitution itself. It is the execution of a power; and when the execution takes place, in strict conformity to the power, it then becomes the act of those giving the power. The term of each President is for four years, the first term having commenced on the 4th of March, 1789. When did General Washington's first term commence? The answer is, on the 4th of March, 1789; his second term on the 4th of March, 1793; and the term of office of each of his successors has been computed in the same way, from that time to the present. The same rule of construction is to be resorted to as to Representatives, except that their term of service is two years. Surely, Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt, dispute, or controversy, as to the day when the time shall commence to run. What is the time that completes one year? Suppose we begin on new year's day: the answer is, the last day of the December following, which completes the three hundred and sixty-five days. Every negro that has been hired out on a new year's day for a year knows the year is out on the last day of December following. The week has seven days: suppose we begin with Monday, are not driven to assume that ground. A On the last night of the last session there were a number of bills on the Clerk's table; each bill had its friends. About ten o'clock, it was perceived that the bills, or some of them, would be lost for want of time. clockmaker in this city was procured, and conveyed behind the clock of this hall; he moved the hands back eighteen minutes. I saw it done, and announced the fact to those who sat near me. Immediately afterwards, when the eyes of fifty gentlemen were on the clock, its hands were moved back one hour more; then, a member from North Carolina proclaimed the fact to the House. I have since been informed that the man who had this done was then a member of Congress, and has since boasted of it; and that he procured it to be done to get a favorite measure he was interested in through the House. Why did he do it? Because he was of opinion that the time would expire at midnight; yet the same man was arrayed with those who afterwards contended that sunrise next morning was the time, and not midnight. Mr. Speaker, I had on that night the consolation to find I did not stand alone in my opinion. A large part of the members present agreed with me, and some of the ablest constitutional lawyers of the House were of the number; among whom I now recollect were two members from Georgia, Messrs. Foster and Gilmer, Mr. Archer from Virginia, and a gentleman from Ohio, who is a member of the present Congress; and on that account I cannot designate him by name. He is a man of great talents, and an able lawyer. This description, I fear, will not enable me to point him out to the House, as it is equally applicable to a number of gentlemen from that State. Sir, as it respects myself, I voted against the three |