FEB. 15, 1836.] Abolitionism in New Hampshire. [H. OF R. question, not only in that House, but every where else, and under the very banner of our freedom-the prisonat all times, and on all occasions, he could not but house in which human beings are incarcerated for the anticipate the denunciation of the northern abolitionists. crime of color-the auction scene, where men, women, But he had a right to expect that at least no southern and children, are sold like brutes to the highest bidder; gentleman would have in any way become instrument- the violent and ruthless breaking up of families, and all al in publishing an incendiary article, which was equally the social relations of life--the separation of husband unjust, both to Mr. P. and to his constituents. Whe- and wife, parent and children--the gloomy coffle--the ther, as has been said, there be incidentally a conjunc-heart-breaking procession of victims bending their way tion between two parties of this Union, to shake it to in chains to the far South--the bloody lash and savage its centre, it was not for him to say, but he would ex- voice of the foul driver--the tear, the groan, and the press his belief that there was sufficient patriotism and clanking manacle--if he will portray all this, and then, moral firmness in the sunny clime, and patriotism and as a peroration, recount his own conduct in regard to moral firmness enough among the snow-capt hills of the abolishing the accursed system of which the above inNorth, to put down agitators, if they existed in both cidents constitute only a part, we assure him, from our sections of the country, and to transmit an unbroken knowledge of human nature, that "his constituents" Union to posterity, with all the rights and privileges will never trouble him to represent them again, but will secured by the constitution, and now happily enjoyed permit him to retire in solium cum dignitate, to private under it. That he might be perfectly understood, he life.] would send to the Clerk's table the paper which had been read in the Senate. [The article was then read by the Clerk, as follows: Hon. FRANKLIN PIERCE." An honorable member from New Hampshire [Mr. PIERCE] has said that not one in five hundred of his constituents were in favor of the object of these petitions" (for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia.)--Mr. Slade's speech. "Figures will not lie," though the representatives of the people sometimes do. "Facts are stubborn things," even when opposed by the magisterial ipse dixit of lawyers and legislators. The truth of these apothegms "the honorable member from New Hampshire" has undoubtedly learned before now. The present, however, is an occasion when he may be taught another lesson. He asserts that not one in five hundred of his constituents are in favor" of petitioning Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. We wonder where his constituents reside. Not, certainly, in New Hampshire, if this account of them is correct. Such an assertion is a libel on the views and feelings of the people of this State; facts and figures will prove it so. The number of inhabitants in New Hampshire, in 1830, over 20 years of age, was 133,313. Now, we have lying before us, from six towns only, petitions to which are affixed, by their own sign manual, the names of more than 700 individuals: Besides these, there have been procured in a single town in Strafford county the signatures of more than 300 legal voters. Another town in the same county will furnish nearly 600, another about 300, and others upwards of 200 each. These signatures have been obtained with comparatively but little exertion. But these are not all, as Mr. Pierce will find before the present session of Congress closes. Large petitions have already been sent on, and others are still in circulation. From these facts we may safely calculate that more than four thousand persons will send in their petitions, not, however, by a dough-face like Mr. Pierce, for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. Let us, then, test the correctness of the honorable gentleman's assertion by the following calculation: The present population over 20 years of age being 133,313; then 133,313: 4,000 33; thus showing that, instead of only one in five hundred being in favor of such petitions, one in thirty-three have already signed them, besides numerous others who are ready to do the same. If Mr. Pierce is as grossly ignorant of the general interests of his constituents as he is of their feelings and views in regard to slavery, we advise him to resign his seat immediately, and prepare himself to represent them by spending the ensuing year in travelling among them, and making inquiry into their condition and opinions. If he should do this, and if he should faithfully portray, in the course of his tour, the various scenes he has witnessed at the capital of this republic, VOL. XII.-159 Mr. P. then proceeded. The text of this article purported to have been taken from the speech of an honorable member of that House, [Mr. SLADE, of Vermont.] It so happened that Mr. P. was not present at the time that declaration was made, and he was first made acquainted with it by an honorable member from South Carolina, but it was then too late to do what he would have done on the occasion, had he been present. If the gentleman who made that remark had any evidence in his possession upon which the conviction of Mr. P's error was made, he should be glad to have that evidence. If not, nntil that gentleman had associated as freely with Mr. P's constituents as he had done, and consequently had the same opportunity of knowing their opinions and sentiments as he had, he must be permitted to take his own judgment in preference to the gentleman's. Mr. P. said he was not mistaken. It was difficult in any case to prove a negative; it would be impossible in this. But while the yeomanry of New Hampshire refuse to entertain, refuse to hear, incendiary lectures, and while they refuse to send in petitions for the abolition of slavery in this District or elsewhere, what is the inference? Are they to be charged with a disposition to invade your rights and to wrest from you your property? Sir, (said, Mr. P.,) it would be a strange deduction, and yet it is the only logic by which his constituents could be made to entertain incendiary designs, or their representative be charged with a false statement. No age nor country had ever been free from fanatics; no age or country had ever been without enthusiasts, and consequently no doctrines, however preposterous, would be without their advocates, and none too visionary to find support; and with equal justice and propriety might the whole people of New York be charged with being followers of Matthias as the people of New Hampshire for favoring the designs of the Knapps, and Garrisons, and Thompsons, because some one or two adherents of those individuals might be found among them. The feelings of his constituents were strong, and had been fully demonstrated. What were the remarks for which he had been ar raigned, not only before the public, but before the Senate of the United States, as having been guilty of untruth in his place on that floor? What he said was, that there was no such disposition among the people of his section of country as that indicated by the gentleman, [Mr. SLADE,] and that not one in a hundred of Mr. P's constituents who did not entertain the most sacred regard for the rights of their southern brethren, and not one in five hundred who would not have those rights protected at any and every hazard. When he made that remark, he did not, of course, intend to include the children, who knew not what they did, nor the ladies, who in their proper sphere had his highest respect and veneration. He meant to speak of the yeomanry of his country, the legal voters. With this qualification, he was prepared to reassert all he said before. He would go farther. Within the last six months, as every one there must know, the subject of abolition had been much agitated in public, and he had never seen yet the first abolitionist, man, woman, or child, within his knowledge, in the district in which he resided. Mr. P. also understood that, since he had made his statement, a report had gone forth from member to member of the House prejudical to his character. It was this: that the petitions had been received there, and were there with a large number of names upon them, praying the abolition of slavery in this District, and that his colleagues and himself had held them back. He now had a member in his eye, who, he understood, had heard that statement; and he called upon that gentleman to state how the fact was. Mr. HIESTER explained that the report he had heard was, that there would be petitions sent on from the gentleman's district, with four or five thousand signatures attached to them. Mr. H. had heard nothing of their having come on. Mr. PIERCE said that was partly what he understood, that petitions had been signed by four or five thousand names, for the abolition of slavery within the District of Columbia. He should regret exceedingly if any member, or any man living, could suppose him capable of stating in his place in that House, or any where else, what was an untruth. Before, however, he proceeded to the "mathematics" of this article, he would propound a single inquiry. He wanted to know if he was in error, and if any gentleman had in his possession, or had sent to him, any petition from New Hampshire, for the abolition of slavery in this District? If he had, Mr. P. trusted he would do him the justice to state the fact. Mr. BORDEN said he had a petition of that character. Mr. BORDEN said it was on the Clerk's table, having been presented on a former day. Mr. PIERCE wished to know the number of signatures on it, and whether they were males, females, or children? Mr. BORDEN replied that he could not tell. Mr. PIERCE desired the Clerk to send for it. He again called the attention of the House to the article before referred to. The editor said he had already seven hundred signatures, and then went on to add that in all human probability six hundred legal voters would sign it in one township, and in another three hundred, in an other two hundred, &c. Then, what does he do? He takes the number of individuals in the State over twenty years of age, and then assumes his presumptive divisor to show that one out of every thirty-three in that State were in favor of abolitionism, With regard to the petition already presented, he should have supposed that it would have been sent to some member of the delegation. He was not aware that such a petition was here as the one he held in his hand, until since the abusive article was read in the Senate on Friday last. It was from the town of Plymouth, in the county of Grafton, and was sent to his colleague, [Mr. BURNS,] then and now confined to his room by sickness. Mr. P. then referred to the signers of the petition, about two hundred and thirty in number, all of whom were females and children, not one male signature among them; and, to show how they must have been got up, there were fifteen signatures, all of the name of George; and he learned from his sick colleague that the greater portion of them were children. He would be much surprised if the petition presented by the gentleman from Massachusetts were not of the same character. [FEB. 15, 1836. Mr. P. took that occasion to state another fact. Since he had the honor to address the House at an early period of the session, primary meetings of the people of New Hampshire had been held in every single county, in which almost every township had been represented, and they had there investigated his statements, and passed upon this subject. Strong resolutions had been adopted at all of them upon this very subject, with, as he believed, but three dissenting voices; and those of his own county had been adopted unanimously. Mr. P. then read them, as follows: Resolved, That the regulation of master and slave is a matter exclusively within the regulation of the States in which it exists, and that any interference by the inhabitants of other States in regard to it is not only unauthorized and intrusive, but faithless and dishonorable, as being against the letter and spirit of the sacred com. pact which binds us together. Resolved, That those who promote inflammatory discussions, and are guilty of disseminating among the slaves of the South publications the tendency of which is to excite servile insurrection, are regarded by us as persons prompted by the most reckless wickedness, or by an insane fanaticism fully as mischievous in its consequences. Let him ask, then, whether, after such an expression from his own county, and from the people of his State generally, he was to be held up as having stated what was untrue? After such testimony as this, was the State he had the honor in part to represent to be arraigned upon the authority of a worthless and miserable incendiary editor? Mr. P. then referred to the other petition, presented by Mr. BORDEN, and it was found, with the exception of about thirty, to be all signed by females. Mr. P. said he could adduce many other facts that would show conclusively that there was hardly a difference among the yeomanry of his State. Mr. P. was not only charged in this article with an inaccuracy of statement, but there was applied to him an epithet that had been made notorious in consequence of having been used on a memorable occasion, by one of the ablest debaters of any age; at the North it was understood to designate a "craven-spirited man." Mr. P. said he would not intentionally injure the feelings of any man; he would not provoke an assault, but he would take occasion to say, in his place there, once for all, that if any gentleman chose to take that statement as correct, he might put Mr. P's spirit to the test, when, and where, and how, he pleased. Mr. P. said he was too unwell to proceed, and he would conclude by expressing a hope that if ever hereafter his character should be arraigned, intentionally or unintentionally, it would be upon no better authority than that of a worthless editor of an incendiary abolition publication. Mr. PICKENS said, as to the paper which had been read, he had never seen it. He had only to remark that the reading of it in the Senate had, he understood, been only with a view to show, presumptively, that the abolitionists were more numerous than an honorable Senator [Mr. HILL] declared them to be. Mr. HAMMOND asked the permission of the House to put a single question to the gentleman from New Hampshire. It being objected to, Mr. H. moved to suspend the rules, and stated that the point he wished to inquire about concerned himself personally. The motion was agreed to, and the rule was suspended. Mr. HAMMOND then said he wished to ask the gen tleman from New Hampshire if he intended, in any part of the remarks he had just made, to charge, directly or indirectly, that there was any connexion between any two parties in this country, of one of which he (Mr. H.) was a member, for the purpose of dissolving the Union? Mr. PEIRCE replied that he had not said so, and had not intended to say so. Mr. HAMMOND said he was perfectly satisfied. The SPEAKER then announced the special order, being the appropriation bills. Mr. MASON, of Virginia, moved to suspend the rules for the purpose of calling the States for petitions; which was agreed to. Petitions and memorials were then presented. SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Mr. BRIGGS presented a petition praying the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. Mr. WISE demanded the question of reception, and inquired whether it was the understanding of the Chair | that all the memorials heretofore presented, and those to be hereafter offered, were, as a matter of course, to be referred to the select committee, under Mr. PINCKNEY's resolution? The CHAIR replied that the memorials heretofore received had been referred to the select committee. As it regarded those to be hereafter offered, that question was not now before the House. The motion of the gentleman from Virginia, not to receive the present petition, was in order. Mr. WISE inquired whether it was competent to debate his motion. The CHAIR said it was. [H. of R. Mr. RICE GARLAND called for the yeas and nays; which were ordered. Mr. ADAMS said he understood the usual course to be that the words of the gentleman must be taken down, and then he must be asked whether he acknowledged those to be his words; and he moved that the words be taken down, and the gentleman so interrogated. The CHAIR said he had directed the Clerk to take down the words of the gentleman, and they would be read. The words were then read by the Clerk, as follows: "He hissed him and spurned him as a deserter from the principles of the South." Mr. WISE denied having used those words. Mr. GRANGER asked if the House must not then pass upon those words, and say whether they were the words of the gentleman or not? The CHAIR said yes. Mr. PATTON said he must hear witnesses before he could decide, as he did not hear the gentleman. Mr. WISE then asked leave to explain; which leave being granted, Mr. WISE said he thanked the House most kindly for their indulgence. He thanked them, and was gratified to see that there was no power upon the throne, nor beneath the throne, that could tie the tongue of debate. He would not pretend to say what words he did utter; but he would say what he did not; and there were words taken down which he was reminded he had not said. He hoped the House would take the usual course, and that it would not make an example of so humble a person as himself. Mr. ADAMS said he understood the gentleman to deny the words taken down; but if Mr. A. understood the gentleman correctly, he said he was not able to say what words he had uttered. Mr. WISE remarked, that although he could not undertake to say, precisely, the words he had used, yet he did undertake to say that he had not used the words taken down. Mr. PATTON did not deny the right of the House to take the question; but he could not vote on the question, pro nor con. Mr. WISE said they could not turn the wheels of time backward; an understanding of the question of the abo lition of slavery must be had now or never. He did not consider that the question of abolition was settled, or could be settled, by any evasive measures. Be it remembered, by the people of this country, that it was not the people of the South, or their representatives, who introduced this subject before the Congress of the United States. Be it remembered, that it was the people of the North who got up abolition petitions, and their representatives who presented them, that introduced that subject; and, if there be agitation and agitators, the people and representatives of the South are not concerned in it. They deprecate the agitation of that subject in Congress and elsewhere. The people of the South have protested against it in every form, but still you will receive those petitions, refer and legislate upon them; and it is time that the South were acting. At the beginning of the session, when the States were first called for resolutions, be it remembered by all, that a gentleman from Maine [Mr. JARVIS] offered resolutions upon the subject; and when the whole subject was brought before the House by the northern representatives, were southern men to be si- Mr. ADAMS said he was under the necessity of asklent? If the representatives of the South had remained ing to be excused from voting on the question, because silent when the subject of legislation upon southern he could not say whether they were the words of the rights was brought up by northern representatives, they gentleman or not. As the gentleman had denied them, would have been recreant to their constituents and to his impression would be that they were not his words; the whole South. Strange, indeed, was it that a south- but the rights of two members were involved in the ern man should make a charge of agitation against the question; the rights of the gentleman from Virginia, South, and come forward with an evasive proposition [Mr. WISE,] and the rights of the member injured and at a time when gentlemen were ready to give the south-insulted if the words were used. If, in denying the words, ern people the resolutions they wished. That a southern representative should have done so is astonishing, and he hissed him and spurned him as a deserter from the principles of the South. The SPEAKER called Mr. WISE to order, and said that the gentleman must take his seat. Mr. WISE remained standing, and the SPEAKER repeated that he was called to order, and he must be seated. Mr. WISE still remained on the floor, and the SPEAKER, in reiterating the call to order, appealed to the House to sustain the decorum of the body. Various members in every part of the House now called to order, and Mr. WISE resumed his seat. Mr. BOULDIN asked to be excused from voting, because he was not within hearing when the words were spoken. He did not expect to get by testimony the exact words spoken, with the context, without which the meaning of no words can be sufficiently understood to say, certainly, whether they be in order or out of order. the gentleman had stated that he meant nothing personal, he would have been satisfied. Mr. WISE said he did not know that he Lad a right to explain; as the right had been refused him by the Chair. The CHAIR said the gentleman had a right to explain if he chose to avail himself of it. Mr. W. B. SHEPARD moved that the gentleman | motives; God only knew his motives. If there be in have leave to proceed. this House a Judas Iscariot, who has received his thirty pieces of silver, he knew it not. Mr. PINCKNEY here rose and interrupted the remarks of Mr. WISE. Sir, said he, this matter is progressing rather too far. I ask the permission of the House to say a word or two. The CHAIR called to order. The gentleman from Virginia was in possession of the floor. Mr. WISE continued. He wished to be distinctly understood that he did not attack the motives of the gentleman from South Carolina, nor to insult him personally; but he had a right to characterize his acts in what terms he pleased. Mr. W. said he did use the words, "hiss him as a deserter from the principles of the South;" and if he could not characterize his measures in such terms, he could not understand what was the freedom of speech. If there was any thing odious in the terms he had used towards the gentleman, he disclaimed it. The CHAIR then varied the words according to the terms just avowed by the gentleman, viz: "He hissed him as a deserter from the principles of the South." After some further explanations by the SPEAKER, in answer to inquiries by Messrs. WISE, PATTON, and VINTON, Mr. PINCKNEY expressed the hope that the gentleman from Virginia would be permitted to proceed. The CHAIR said that the pending question could not be debated. Mr. INGERSOLL next attempted to address the House, but he was called to order, and took his seat. Mr. W. B. SHEPARD withdrew his motion to permit the gentleman from Virginia to proceed. Mr. WISE again repeated, that the words which he had used were, "that, in reference to the course of the member from South Carolina, [Mr. PINCKNEY,] he hissed him as a deserter from the principles of the South, on the abolition question." The SPEAKER decided these remarks out of order. Mr. WISE appealed from the decision of the Chair, but subsequently withdrew the appeal. Mr. BELL moved that Mr. WISE be permitted to proceed in his remarks. Mr. R. GARLAND called for the yeas and nays; which were ordered, and were as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Heman Allen, Ashley, Bailey, Beale, Bell, Bond, Bouldin, Boyd, Briggs, Bunch, John Calhoon, William B. Calhoun, Campbell, Carter, John Chambers, Childs, Nathaniel H. Claiborne, Clark, Cleveland, Coffee, Coles, Connor, Corwin, Cushing, Deberry, Denny, Dromgoole, Everett, Forester, French, William K. Fuller, Galbraith, James Garland, Rice Garland, Glascock, Graham, Granger, Graves, Grennell, Griffin, Hiland Hall, Hammond, Hard, Hardin, Harlan, Harper, Albert G. Harrison, Hawkins, Haynes, Hiester, Holsey, Howard, Hunt, Huntsman, Ingersoll, Jenifer, Joseph Johnson, Henry Johnson, Kinnard, Lawler, Lawrence, Lay, Love, Loyall, Lucas, Lyon, John Y. Mason, Maury, McComas, McKay, McKennan, Mercer, Milligan, Morgan, Morris, Owens, Patton, James A. Pearce, Pettigrew, Peyton, Phillips, Pickens, Pinckney, Potts, Reed, Rencher, Roane, Robertson, Russell, William B. Shepard, Augustine H. Shepperd, Shields, Sloane, Standefer, Steele, Storer, Taliaferro, Thomas, John Thomson, Waddy Thompson, Towns, Turner, Underwood, Vinton, Webster, White, Lewis Williams, Sherrod Williams-108. NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Ash, Bean, Beaumont, Boon, Bovee, Brown, Bynum, Cambreleng, Carr, Casey, George Chambers, Chaney, Chapin, Craig, Cramer, Crane, Cushman, Darlington, Dickerson, Doubleday, Dunlap, Efner, Fairfield, Farlin, Fowler, Fry, Philo C. Fuller, Gillet, Grantland, Haley, Joseph Hall, Hamer, Samuel S. Harrison, Hazeltine, Henderson, Hoar, Hub [FEB. 15, 1836. ley, Huntington, Ingham, William Jackson, Jabez Jackson, Janes, Jarvis, Richard M. Johnson, Cave Johnson, Benjamin Jones, Judson, Kennon, Kilgore, Lane, Lansing, Gideon Lee, Joshua Lee, Thomas Lee, Leonard, Lincoln, Abijah Mann, Job Mann, Manning, Martin, William Mason, Moses Mason, Samson Mason, May, McKeon, McKim, McLene, Miller, Montgomery, Muhlenberg, Page, Parker, Parks, Patterson, Dutee J. Pearce, Phelps, John Reynolds, Joseph Reynolds, Schenck, Seymour, Shinn, Sickles, Sprague, Sutherland, Taylor, Toucey, Turrill, Wagener, Wardwell, Weeks, Whittlesey--92. So the House decided that Mr. WISE should be permitted to proceed in his remarks. Mr. WISE rose to address the House, but Mr. VINTON made a question of order. He contended that, under the resolution of Mr. PINCKNEY, it was incompetent for the gentleman from Virginia to raise the question of the reception of this petition--that resolution having declared that all petitions which should hereafter be presented should be referred to the select committee appointed on the subject. The SPEAKER explained the grounds of his decision. Under the resolution adopted by the House, the Chair considered that all the petitions which had heretofore been received or offered, and their contents stated, were referred to the select committee. The present petition had been proposed to be offered for the first time, and the Chair proceeded to assign the reasons which, under the peculiar state of the case, had induced the decision that it was competent to make the question which had been raised by the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. WISE,] on the presentation of this memorial. The decision of the Chair was sustained by Messrs. WISE, JENIFER, and PEYTON, and opposed by Messrs. BYNUM, CHAMBERS of Pennsylvania, BRIGGS, FRENCH, and HAWES. In the discussion of the point of order, Mr. PINCKNEY was called upon by Mr. BYNUM to state the ob. jects which he had in view in offering his resolution; and in reply, Mr. P. stated that he meant to embrace all the petitions which had been offered, and which should hereafter be presented or proposed to be offered, with the especial object of putting a stop to a discussion which he deemed exceedingly dangerous to the interests of the South, and to the perpetuity of the Union. He intended by his resolution to refer every petition on this subject to a select committee, in order that a report should be made, which would be satisfactory to the South, and acceptable to the North. He hoped the House would act consistently, and send all the petitions which might be offered to the committee. If the decision of the Chair should be sustained, his object in offering the resolution would be frustrated, and the House would be thrown into confusion, and the discussion which he contemplated to arrest would be continued. Had he supposed that this interpretation would have been put upon his resolution, he should never have submitted it. While on the floor, Mr. P. hoped, he said, that he would be permitted to reply to an unprovoked, wanton, and unjustifiable assault, made upon him by a member from Virginia, [Mr. WISE.] The CHAIR said the question pending was a point of order on an appeal from a decision of the Speaker. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. PINCKNEY] could not be permitted, at this time, to reply to remarks made on another subject. Mr. PEYTON suggested that the gentleman from South Carolina should be permitted by the House to proceed in his contemplated remarks. Objection being made, Mr. PINCKNEY said this was a matter personal to himself. His own self-respect would induce him to refrain from replying to the extreme and violent personal. ities of the gentleman from Virginia, unless agreeable to the House. Further objection being made, Mr. PINCKNEY resumed his seat. Before any question was taken on the appeal from the decision of the Chair, Mr. GILLET (who had obtained the floor) remarked that he did not desire, nor did his constituents desire, that the question of abolition should be discussed in Congress. He did not, therefore, rise to make a speech; but as the questions of order growing out of the presentation of an abolition petition had occupied the House until the usual hour of adjournment, he moved that the House adjourn; which was agreed to; and The House adjourned. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16. POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT. The House resumed the consideration of the resolution, offered by Mr. SMITH, of Maine, proposing to take from the files of the House, and print, the letter of the late honorable William T. Barry, late Postmaster General, presented to the House of Representatives on the last day of the last session of Congress. Mr. MASON, of Ohio, withdrew his motion for the reading of the letter. Mr. HAWES renewed the motion, but subsequently withdrew it. Mr. EVERETT said he regretted the necessity that compelled him to oppose the printing the letter of the Postmaster General; he disclaimed all personal feelings. With that officer he had not the honor of a personal acquaintance, and against him he entertained no unkind feeling. In the portion of the letter read, he called the attention of the House to the following passage: "When an executive Department of the Government is thus assailed by a committee of a branch of the legislative department, it is but an act of justice, due to the Executive, the people, and himself, for the head of that Department to present the facts to the public." The letter is thus, on the face of it, an appeal to the public against a report of a committee of this House, and laid on its table on the last hour of its session; and the motion of the gentleman from Maine is to ask this House to become the organ through which this appeal to the public shall be communicated. The letter asks no action of the House. He appealed to the House to say whether it was proper thus to come to the aid of any one who impugned the acts of the House or of its committee. The press is open to all, and through that all who are injured by acts of the House or its committee can make their appeal to the people. On this ground he should be opposed to give circulation to any complaint of the people made through the House against the acts of its committees. Mr. E. then read the following from the letter: "But many of the most important subjects of complaint were concealed from the undersigned during the whole investigation, and were first made known to him by the publication of the report. The undersigned was frequently informed by members of the committee that nothing of an unfavorable nature relating to the adminstration of this Department had been, so far as related to himself, developed in the investigation; and in no single point in which the committee have been so lavish of their animadversion was an opportunity given for explanation or defence." This passage contains a charge against the committee of concealment-of fraudulent concealment; and also of assertions inconsistent with truth. However intended, [H. OF R. it, by its general terms, contains charges against the whole committee. Mr. E. said he would answer for himself. The charges could not with truth be applied to him. He had neither concealed any thing from the head of the Department, nor at any time made the statement referred to. He said he had no personal acquaintance with the Postmaster General: he had no personal communication with him during the examination: that no personal communication from him was expected. There were, however, members of the committee with whom, he had no doubt, the Postmaster General had free intercourse. There was nothing improper in it. No injunction against such communication was required or expected by the committee. He presumed that, in fact, the Department was informed of the character of the examination going on within its walls. Further, the committee, from time to time, sent resolutions to the head of the Department, not only for facts in relation to subjects of investigation, but for explanation, for the reason of his conduct; and that his answers were a part of the report. He appealed to the records of the committee for this fact. He did not believe that any member of the committee was justly chargeable with the concealment complained of; or that the Postmaster General could justly complain of being uninformed of the proceedings of the commit tee. As to the fact stated, that members of the committee frequently informed the Postmaster General that nothing of an unfavorable character was developed, &c., he would say that he gave no such information at any time; and he believed he was enabled to make the same declaration for the others of the minority. Considering these charges, then, as unfounded, he could not vote for the printing of any paper that contained them. On these grounds, then, that the letter was a mere appeal to the people against the report of a committee of the House, a letter asking no action of the House, and, also, that it contained unfounded imputations against that committee, he should vote against the resolution. Mr. HAWES said this was indeed a singular proceeding on the part of the gentleman from Maine, [Mr. SMITH,] and in the discussion of this question Mr. H. should nei ther spare his feelings, nor the feelings of any member upon that floor, nor any one in that House, or out of it, so long as he could keep himself within the rules of order. In order that this question might be plainly understood by every member of the House, he should give a brief relation of it, and of the part taken by the gentleman from Maine, during the recess of Congress, in relation to this matter. Nor should he stop here, but he should go on to expose to the world the part that gentleman had acted. It was generally known that the Post Office Department of this Government was considered mismanaged, and its funds misapplied; and that, by order of that House, a committee had been appointed to investigate its concerns. During the recess of the last Congress, he, together with the gentleman who had just addressed the House, and other members, who had been appointed the committee on that occasion, made a laborious investigation; and two reports, of the majority and minority of the committee, had been made, and scattered through the nation. The people, therefore, were as well informed as to the facts contained in those reports as their representatives. After the committee had made their reports, and a large number of them had been printed by order of the House, and circulated throughout the country, the then Postmaster General of the United States, now no more, whose friend Mr. H. was while living, and whose memory he held dear now dead, upon the last night of the last session of Congress, addressed a commu |