Mr. KING taid, that he had received a letter from an unfortunate debtor in New York in relation to the subject matter of this bill. The laws of New York, prior to the last session of her Legisla ture, had recognised a distinction between resident and non-resident debtors. The resident debtors were exempted from imprisonment for debt in certain cases. The non-resident debtors were still subject to it. At the last session of the Legislature of New York, the discrimination was repealed, and both classes of debtors placed on the same footing. But the act of Congress of 1839, to abolish imprisonment for debt in certain cases, having passed before the act passed by New York last winter, was not applicable to non-residents of that State. The provisions of the present bill would extend the benefit of the law of 1839 to that class of debtors. He trusted that no objection would be made to its passage at once.

Mr. WALL begged leave to return his thanks to his honorable friend from Alabama, for bringing this bill before the Senate at this time; and he hoped that his motion would be unanimously sustained. He fully concurred with him in the propriety, and he might add the justice and necessity of the immediate action of the Senate. He believed that there would be but one opinion among Senators upon the merits of the bill. The original bill was intended to conform the practice of the courts of the United States, in respect to the imprisonment of the body, to that of the several States in which they sit. The construction which that law had received in those courts, confined its remedial operation to the cases where a State had abolished imprisonment for debt previous to the passage of the law. This defect in the law was presented to the notice of the Senate, at the last session by his honorable friend from Michigan, [Mr. NORVELL,] who introduced the present bill. It received the sanction of the Judiciary Committee, and passed this body unanimously, and was sent to the House of Representatives early during the last session, where it remained unacted on at their adjournment. As soon as the committees of the Senate were organized at the present session, the same bill was, on the motion of the same Senator, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, which, at the earliest moment practicable, reported it to the Senate, and recommended its pas age. He had been induced to make these remarks in the hope that this bill might attract the attention of those elsewhere, who could prevent it from remaining among the unfinished business of the present ses

sion.

Mr. NORVELL said. that, in addition to the reasons assigned by the honorable Senator from Alabama [Mr. KING] in favor of the immedia'e passage of this supplemental bill, he would observe, that in one or two States, besides New York, certainly in one other, laws had been passed abolishing imprisonment for debt within their respective limits, subsequently to the passage of the act to which the present bill was a supplement. The citizens of those States were, therefore, by the construction of the Federal courts, excluded from the benefit of the act of Congress of 1839, conforming the laws of the United States, in reference to nonimprisonment for debt, to the laws of the several Sates in force at the time of its passage. His hcnorable friend from New Jersey [Mr. WALL] had done him the justice to ascribe to him the credit, if it were any, of first calling the at cntion of the Senate to the defects of the act of 1839, ard of propos ing the remedy which the present bill presented. He was glad that the Senator from Alabama had thus early moved the consideration of a bill so hu. mane in its objects, and concluded by the expression of a hope that the Senate would immediately pass it and send it to the other House.

The bill was accordingly taken up, and contidered as in committee of the whole, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

ORDERS OF THE DAY. The joint resolution proposing to amend the Constitution of the United States to limit the tenure of the judges of the federal courts was taken up, and, on motion of Mr. TAPPAN, made the order of the day for the first Monday in January,

The bill to establish a Board of Commissioners

to hear and determine claims against the United States was taken up and made the special order for Monday next.

The bill granting to the State of Michigan a quantity of land to aid said State in the construc tion of a canal around the Falls of Ste Marie was taken up and made the special order for Tuesday

next.

The bill to create an additional land office in the State of Michigan, and for other purposes, being taken up,

Mr. NORVELL explained the necessity of its passage, and hoped it would be acted on without delay.

Mr. PRESTON wished a postponement of the bill until the Senator's colleague [Mr. PORTER] was in his seat, and also to enable the Senate to acquire the information requisite to act understandingly on the subject.

Mr. NORVELL said that all the information necessary was already before the Senate, and presumed that his colleague could have no objection to immediate action on the bill. If, however, he [Mr. PORTER] wished its postponement, Mr. N. would not press the matter at present.

Mr. PORTER (who had just come in) express. iug a wish that the bill might be passed over, it was accordingly done.

The bill for the relief of George W. Paschall; The bill to relinquish to the State of Alabama the two per cent. fund reserved by the act for her admission into the Union, to be applied to the making of a road or roads leading to said State; The bill to establish an additional land district in State of Alabama;

The bill for the relief of William Jonce;

The bill for the relief of certain settlers on the public lands, who were deprived of the benefits of the act granting pre-emption rights, which was approved on the 19 h of June, 1834;

The bill to grant other lands to the inhabitants of townships deprived of the 16th section by Indian reservations;

The bill to relinquish the reversionary interest of the United States to a certain reservation in the State of Alabama;

The bill in relation to donations of land to certain persons in the State of Arkansas;

The bill to quiet the titles of certain land claimants in the States of Missouri and Atkansas, and for other purposes;

The bill to settle the title to certain tracts of land in the State of Arkansas;

The bill to authorize the inhabitants of township eight north, range thirty-two west, in the State of Arkansas, to enter a section of land in lieu of the rixteenth section in said township, upon condition that the same be surrendered to the United States for military purposes;

The bill authorizing the inhabitants of fractional township ten south, of range ore east, in the State of Arkansas, to enter one half section of land for school purposes;

The bill for the relief of James Smith of Arkansas; and

The bill for the relief of sundry citizens of Arkansas, who lost their improvements in consequence of a treaty between the United States and the Choctaw Indians;

were severally considered as in committee of the whole, and were ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

The Senate then went into Executive business; and afterwards Adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
MONDAY, December 21, 1840.

The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communications, viz:

1. From the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting a statement of the funds of the Chickasarv Indians, as required by the act of 20 h April,

in his office from the 1st December, 1839, to the 14th December, 1840.

On motion of Mr. LINCOLN, referred to the Committee on the Public Buildings, and ordered to be printed.

3. From the Secretary of the Territory of Wis. konsan, transmitting two copies of the laws of said Territory, passed at the last two sessions of the Legislature thereof.

On motion of Mr. BRIGGS, referred to the Committee on the Territories.

4. From the Clerk of the House, as follows: Hon R. M. T. HUNTER,

Speaker of the House of Representatives: SIR: In pursuance of the following resolution of the House, dated December 17, 1840: "Resolved, That the Clerk of this House be instructed to report by what authority the sum of eleven hundred and eighty dollars and fifty cents was paid to CHARLES JARED INGERSOLL, esq. for his expenses in taking testimony, &c. in the contested election with CHARLES NAYLOR, esq. pending at the last session of Congress; and out of what fund such amount was paid, as reported in document No. 7 to this House," I beg leave to report that, on the 20th July last, a paper was handed the accounting Clerk of this office, containing a list of the witnesses in the contested case of NAYLOR and INGERSOLL, together with the number of days such witOn the face of nesses had been in attendance. Chairthis paper is an order signed "J. JOHNSON, man of Accounts," "that the witnesses above named be paid two dollars per diem "

In virtue of this order I paid Mr. INGERSOLL $1,123 for 564 days, at $2 per day, for the purpose of paying the said witnesses. At the beginning of the session Mr. INGERSOLL returned the receipts of the individuals paid, and $11 50 in money, stating that that amoun! had been overpaid. In casting up the receipts I find them to - $1,116 50

amount to

Add the amount returned by Mr. INGER

SOLL

Making

11 50 $1,128 00

The amount paid to Mr. INGERSOLL. All of which is respectfully submitted.

HUGH A. GARLAND.
NATURALIZATION LAWS.

Mr. DAVIS of Indiana, in pursuance of notice, moved a reconsideration of the vote by which the bill introduced by Mr. HAND for establishing a uniform rule of naturalization, had been referred to the Judiciary Committee.

The question being on the reconsideration, Mr. DAVIS moved the previous question; which was ordered.

A member from North Carolina moved a call of the House.

The SPEAKER informed him that after the previous question had been ordered, it was too late to move for a call of the House.

The main question on the motion to reconsider was then ordered, and taken by yeas and nays, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Judson Allen, Anderson, Banks, Beatty, Beirne, Blackwe'l, Boyd, Brewster, Albert G. Brown, Carr, Clifford, Connor, M. A. Cooper, William R. Cooper, Craig, Crary, Cross, Dana, Davee, John Davis, John W. Davis, Dickerson, Doan, Doig, Earl, Eastman, Ely. Fine, Floyd, Formance, Galbraith, Gerry, Hand. John Hastings, Hawkins, Hill of North Carolina, Hook, Hubbard, Jackson, Jameson, Joseph Johnson, Cave Johnson, Nathaniel Jones, J hn W. Joues, Keim, Kille, Leadbetter, Leet, Leonard, Lowell, Lucas, McClellan, McClure, McCulloch, Mallory, Marchand, Medill, Miller, Montanys, Montgemery, Samuel W. Morris, Newhard, Parish, Parmenter, Parris, Paynter, Prentiss, Reynolds, Edward Rogers, Ryall, Samuels, Shaw, Albert Smith, Thomas Smith, S rong, Sumter, Swearingen, Sweney, Taylor, Jacob Thompson, Turney, Vanderpoel, Vroom, David D. Wagener, Watterson, Weller, Wick, J. W. Williams, and Henry Williams-90.

NAYS-Messrs. Alford, John W. Allen, Andrews, Bell, Boardman, Bend, Botts, Breckenridge, Briggs, Sampson H. Butler, Calhoun, Wm. B. Campbell, Carroll, Carter, Casey, Chittenden,

Clark, Coles, James Cooper, Crabb, Cranston, Crockett, Edward Davies, Dawson, Deberry, Dellet, Doe, Evans, Everett, Garland, Gates, Gentry, G.dlings, Geggin, Goode, Granger, Griffin, Grinnell, Hall, William S. Hasting, Hawes, Henry, Hill of Virginia, Hoffman, Hunt, James, Jenifer, Charles Johnston, William Cost Johnson, Kempshall, Lane, Lincoin, Mervin, Mason, Mitchell, Monroe, Moore, Morgan, Calvary Morris, Naylor, Nisbet, Osborne, Peck, Randall, Randolph, Rariden, Rayner, Reed, Ridgway, Russell, Saltonstall, Shepard, Simonton, Slade, Stanly, Stuart, Taliaferro, Waddy Thompson, John B. Thompson, Tillinghast, Toland, Triplett, Trum ball, Underwood. Peter J. Wagner, Warren, John White, T. W. Williams, Lewis Williams, Joseph L. William, Christopher H. Williams, Winthrop, and Wise-93.

So the House refused to reconsider.

Mr. BOTI'S, after some brief preliminary remarks, asked leave to submit the following reselution:

Recolved, That the Committee on Accounts be instructed to report to this House by what authority, and at what time, and on whose application it was ord red and paid, they directed the Clerk of this House to pay the sum of $1,123 to Charles J. Ingersoll, as compensation to witnesses, &c. examined in the contested election between the said Charles J. Ingersoll and Charles Naylor

Mr. MEDILL said he was not in his place when the report was made, being absent on a special committee. He hoped, therefore, that the gentle. man from Virginia would withdraw his resolution for the present to permit him to make a motion in relation to it.

Mr. BOTTS desired first to ascertain the subject intended to be embraced by the motion.

Mr. MEDILL said that in case the resolution should be withdrawn, he intended to submit a motion recommitting the report of the Clerk, and directing him to report

"By what authority, on what vouchers, and through whom, he paid to E. Bulkley the sum of $500; to Bayre Newcombe the sum of $416; and to George Lowrey the sum of $104, for services rendered by them in taking depositions in the case of the contested election between Messrs. Ingersoll and Naylor, as reported in Document No. 7; by what authority, and on what vouchers, he sent to Mr. Naylor money to pay his witnesses in the said contest, and which that gentleman says he returned; whether the said vouchers give the names and time of attendance of the said witnesses, in whose hand writing it was filed, and what has become of the same."

Mr. M. said his reason for making the motion would be found in the report of the Clerk in relation to the contingent expenses. He was not aware that Mr. INGERSOLL was any more interested in the payment of those expenses than Mr. NAYLOR. A certain sum had been paid to the commissioner at Pailadelphia, also to the door keeper, &c. Now he could not see that the commissioner was the commissioner of Mr. INGERSOLL any more than of Mr. NAYLOR, or that the expenses incurred for door keeper, &c applied to one of these contestants any more than the other. And yet the gentleman (Mr. NAYLOR) had stated that he never touchel a dollar of the money. It appeared that a spe. cific sum of money had been sent to that gentleman for the payment of his witnesses. Now, how could the Clerk have ascertained the exact amount of money for the payment of these witnesses, unless a statement of the amount had been first forwarded to the office of the Clerk of the House of Repre sentatives. He (Mr. M.) understood that such was the fact, and that it was in the hand writing of the gentleman him.elf. What motive, also, had influenced that gentleman in returning a portion of the money and not the whole, he was unable to say. He hoped the report would be recommitted, as, if the House was to have a statement of the expenses, it ought to be foll and complete.

Mr. NAYLOR explained that in his remarks, the other day, he was merely answering a question put to him as to whe her his witnesses had been paid or not. His answer on that occasion was that they had not, but that he had offered to pay

them himself, believing they had no right to receive it from the Committee on Accounts. He had never undertaken to deny that expenses had been incurred for commissioner, door keeper, &c. In relation to the accounts appearing in his hand witing, Mr. N. was understood to say that his witnesses had refused to receive their compensation from him, u ging that, as they had been summoned by Congress, they had a right to be paid by Cengress. Under such circumstances, he could do no less than to certify to the number of days his witnesses had been engaged. Mr. N. said that when the chairman of the Committee on Accounts had intimated to him, at the last session, that Mr. INGERS LL'S money for the payment of witnesses had been allowed, he expressed his astonishment, and declared it to be an outrage and illegal. Inasmuch, there ore, as he had never denied that expenses had been incurred, during the investigation of the case, in which both contestants were included, he did see why he should be subjected to rebuke.

Mr. BRIGGS suggested to the gentleman from Virginia a modification of his resolution as fol lows:

Resolved, That all the papers in relation to mo. ney paid for witnesses, and the expense of taking testimony in the case of NAYLOR and INGERSOLL, be referred to the Committee on Public Expenditures, with directions to inquire how much money has been paid in said case, to whom, for what, and by what authority said money was paid: also, further to inquire whether there is any existing law authorizing money to be paid in sail case.

Mr BOTTS was desirous that this subject should be probed to the bottom, as it was evident there was fault somewhere. But with regard to the proposition of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. MEDILL,] he must decline it, inasmuch as the Clerk, in the report, had s'ated the fact that the money was paid under the authority of the Committee on Accounts. And in relation to the proposition of the genticman from Massachusetts, [Mr. BRIGGS] he must a'so decline it, for the reason that he wished to afford to the Committee,on Accounts an opportunity of defending themselves if they chose. He thought it would be unjust to discuss the matter without affording the committee such an opportunity. The question then being on the resolution, Mr. BRIGGS moved to amend by adding the words previously suggested.

the

Mr. UNDERWOOD had seen the origin of difficulties like these, and four or five years ago he had predicted what had now taken place. In the cases of Gisham and Newland of North Carolina, he believed the precedent was established of paying both the contestants for a seat. It was also carried out in the case of Moore and Letcher, against whch he (Mr. UNDERWOOD) had voted, as he had also done in case of his New Jer ey friends the other day. Now, in his opinior, this practice of paying the expenses in contested elections, of both the contestants, was establishing, a precedent by which the ten thousand witnesses who might be examined before justices of the peace in contested elections, would have to be paid from one end of the country to the other. He was in favor of the proposition of the gentleina from Massachusetts to refer the whole subject to a committee, but it did not go quite far enough. He though the committee ought to be directed to inquire as to the legality of paying contestants to seats bere.

Mr. JOSEPH JOHNSON would not have troubled the House with a single word on the subject, had not reference been made to the Committee on Accounts. But the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. NAYLOR] had directed his eye towards hm, and referred to conver aion which the gentleman alleged hid taken place between them previous to the adjournment of the last Congress. Mr. J then proceeded to state that he had not the most distant recollection of ever having heard any thing from that gentlemen of the character he said had taken place; all he knew in relation to the matter was from the accounts presented to the committee by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. The coinmittee, on a reference to the rule, agreed to pass the accounts without reference to party or other consi

derations; and the accounts of both gentlemen were passed.

In passing the resolation, he believed the committee had followed the invariable rule in such cases; and when the proper time came, they would be ready to go into the matter.

Mr. NAYLOR was perfectly sure that the conversation in question took place with a member of the Committee on Accounts, and that he had expressed his opinion in regard to the illegality of the payment to Mr. Ingersoll's witnesses; bat he perhaps was in error in saying it was the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. JOHNSON] to whom he had made the remarks; he believed he might have been mistaken in that respect.

After some brief remarks from Messrs. BOTTS and ANDREWS,

Mr. WISE said he was sorry that this great contest between the two gentlemen from Pennsyl vзuia, had at last dwindled down to a mere little shabby matter of accounts. He hoped no foreign issue would be involved in the inquiry. For h's part, he argued that they ought not to pay for two seats in the House, as a seat was not worth double price. The principle of paying double price was established long before the case of Graham and Newland; and if we mean to follow the example, it would have the effect of offering a bounty to contest the seats. He had risen, however, to call the atterin of the House to one point, viz: what right had they to make either Mr. NAYLOR or Mr. INGERSOLL a tru tee for the payment of these witnesses? Where was the authority for making those gentlemen the trustees for A, B, or C? He would like to have the inquiry go further, and require the gentlemen to go into an account with Government, and show that they had paid these witnesses; for if they had not, the parties could recover the amount from Government in any court of justice. He hoped the matter would be investigated, as, if the Committee on Accounts had paid away money wrongfully, they would be allowed an opportunity of accounting for it. He hoped this would lead to some rule or law on the subject.

Mr. JOSEPH JOHNSON begged leave to say that, as a member of the Committee on Accounts, he believed they had not paid away money either negligently or unlawfully. The payment had been made in strict conformity with the 131st rule of the House, as follows:

"The rule for paying witnesses summoned to ap. pear before this House, or either of its committees, shall be as follows: For each day a witness shall attend, the sun of two dollars; for each mile he shall travel, in going from or coming to the place of examination, the sum of ten cents each way,"

elc.

Mr. WISE wished to inquire if that rule authorized the payment of the money.

Mr. J. JOHNSON would inform the gentleman that he must propound the question elsewhere. The committee passed the accounts as presented, in accordance with the rule, and the receipts were now on file.

Mr. BOTTS desired to know if that rule authorized the Committee on Accounts to pay any thing without the order of the House.

Mr. J. JOHNSON, in reply, read the 97th rule of the House, viz:

"It shall be the duty of the Committee on Accounts to superintend and control the expenditures of the contingent fund of the House of Represen'atives, and to audit and settle all accounts which may be charged thereon, &c."

Here, said Mr. J. is the authority, and the committee will with great pleasure report on all the facts as far as they can. They have acted in conformity with the practice of the House ever since we have had a Government. Mr. J. concluded by observing that these objections were all a mere maiter of smoke, without the least shadow of sub

s'ance.

Mr SMITH of Maine wished to know if this were not petition day.

Mr. CUSHING wished to say a few works. Mr. SMITH. "O, there has been enough said, let us have the previous question."

Mr. CUSHING said he should be very brief in what he had to say.

Mr. SMITH. Well, I will allow the gentleman five minutes, if he will promise to move the previous question at the end of that time.

Mr. CUSHING promised, and proceeded to argue that the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. UNDERWOOD,] was wrong in stating that the case of Newland and Graham was the first case of contested election where payment had been made. The first case was that of Elisha Potter, Senator from Rhode Island, in 1834. An act was passed by the Senate for the payment of the money, and it was concurred in by the House.

Mr. UNDERWOOD said the case of Newland and Graham was the first case where money had been taken from the contingent fund of the House.

Mr. CUSHING said that was a mere matter of argument; the question was, the fact of payment, and that was settled so far as precedent was concerned. As regarded the question of principle, the right of coatest was the right, not of a member himself, but of his constituents. It was not right for the House to shut out his constituen's. It was in that view of the matter that he voted in the case of Newland and Graham, Moore and Letcher, the Mississippi case, and also in another case at the present session. Mr. C. then moved the previous question.

Mr. BOTTS consented to modify his resolution as follows:

Resolved, That the Committee on Accounts be instracted to report by what authority they authorized the Clerk of this House to pay the sum of $2 160 50 to Charles J. Ingersoll and others, for aking testimony and for other expenses incurred in the contested election.

Mr. BRIGGS then withdrew his amendment.

The call for the previous question was then se conded, and the main question on the resolution ordered and decided in the affirmative. So the resolution was adopted.

Mr. MEDILL then moved to recommit the report of the Clerk with the instructions previously noticed; which motion was agreed to, and the report recommitted accordingly.

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS. The States and Territories were then called, and petitions were presented by

Messrs. SMITH and CLIFFORD, of Maine. [Mr. SMITH asked and obtained leave to intro. duce a bill entitled "A bill in addition to an act to regulate the pay of the navy of the United States," approved March 3, 1835: referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.]

Mr. J. W. WILLIAMS, of New Hampshire. [Mr. WILLIAMS presented the petition of John Hicks, to be placed on the list of invalid pensions.] Messrs. H. WILLIAMS, SALTONSTALL, ADAMS, LINCOLN, and CUSHING, of Massachusetts.

Mr. TILLINGHAST, of Rhode Island.

[Mr. TILLINGHAST presented the petition of David Melvill, of Newport, Rhode Island, administrator of Benjamin Fry, deceased, for certain allowances to be credited to said Fry. Also, presented anew the petition of Lieut. Stephen Cornell, of the revenue cutter service, for pay as lieutenant in the United States naval service while serving in that capacity in Florida; which was pending at the last session, and was again referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.]

Messrs. WILLIAMS, BOARDMAN, OSBORNE, and SMITH, of Connecticut.

[Mr. WILLIAMS presented the petition of Betsy Beebe, asking that the same relief may be extend. ed to her which is provided in every case of the widows of those who have been wounded in the service of the country. Also, the petition of Daniel Penharlow, praying that his name may be placed on the pension roll for wounds received while in the service of the United States during the late war.]

Messrs. SLADE, EVERETT, and SMITH, of Vermont.

Messrs. ALLEN, DANA, KEMPSHALL, CURTIS, GRANGER, BARNARD, GRINNELL, HUNT, CHITTENDEN, MARVIN, RUSSELL, STRONG, HAND, MONROE, HOFFMAN, and GATES, of New York.

[On motion of Mr. HAND, the petition of the

heirs of Mary Addonis and accompanying paper were referred to the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions. Also, the petition and papers of Amible Mority to the Committee on Revolutionary Chims. Also, petition and papers of Joseph S. Thomas, to the Committee of Claims. Also, pe'itions and papers in cases of the children of Mary Addonis and children of Joseph Plomb, were re. committed to the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions. Also, the petitions and papers of John Wilson were referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. Also referred additional papers in case of Levi M. Roberts ]

[Mr. HUNT presented a memorial from citizens of West Troy and Watervliet, Albany county, New York, asking the passage of a bankrupt law; referred to the Commit'ee on the Judiciary]

[Mr. STRONG presented a p tition of sundry citizens of Seville county, New York, praying the passage of a general bankrupt law; referred to the Committee on the Judiciary ]

[Mr. KEMP HALL presented the petition of Henry O. Reilly and 167 other citizens of Monroe county, New York, praying for the enactment of a general bankrupt law. J

[Mr. CURTIS laid before the House a communication from the Fifth Auditor to the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, in relation to lighthouses.

Also, a communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, in relation to the purchase of a smal piece of land to complete the site of the customhouse in New York.

Mr. C. presented the memorial of Samuel B. Gaston, of New York, and many other inhabitants of that city, praying for the passage of a bankrupt law ]

[Mr GRANGER presented the petition of citizens of Ontario county, in the State of New York, in favor of a general bankrupt law]

[Mr. CHITTENDEN presented the petitions of inhabitants of Jefferson county, for a post route from Carthage to Adams; and from inhabitants of Jefferson county, for a ship canal around the Falls of Niagara ]

Mr. BARNARD presented the petitions of citizens of the State of New York, complaining of improper and extra-judicial conduct of Augustus Conkling, one of the judges of the United States for the District of New York.

[Mr. B. said that this, like all other cases of a similar description, was of great delicacy; and, at his request, the petitions were read, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Messrs. WAGENER, LEET, GALBRAITH, TOLAND, NAYLOR, MCCLURE, and DAVIES, of Pennsylvania.

[Mr. TOLAND said, that in the absence of his colleague from the city, [Mr. SERGEANT ] to whom the duty had been assigned, he had been requested to lay before the House the proceedings of numerous persons interested in claims for French spoliations prior to 1800, held at the Exchange, in Philadelphia, on the 24th of November last. Mr. T. expressed a strong desire that this Congress would not rise without passing a law for the relief of those claimants, the justice of whose claims had been so generally admitted, and which had been so c:uelly and unjustly delayed.

The proceedings were ordered to be printed.

Mr. TOLAND also presented the petition of Margaret C. Meade, widow and executrix of Richard W. Meade, praying for the adjustment of the claims of her deceased husband]

Messrs. JOHNSON and JENIFER, of Maryland.

Messrs. JOHNSON, WISE, and HUNTER, of Virginia.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of North Carolina.
Mr. GRIFFIN, of South Carolina.
Mr. DAWSON, of Georgia.

Messrs. TRIPLETT, BUTLER, UNDERWOOD, POPE, EOYD, and DAVIS, of Kentucky.

[Mr. TRIPLETT presented the memorial of a meeting of Tobacco Planters of Daviess county, Kentucky. Also, the petition of sundry citizens of Daviess county interested in the cultivation of tobacco.}

Messrs. CAMPBELL, BROWN, and GENTRY, of Tennessee.

Messrs. DOAN, GIDDINGS, and GOODE, of Ohic.

Mr. MOORE, of Louisiana.

Messrs. RARIDEN, LANE, and CARR, of Indiana.

[Mr. CARR presented the petition of John Hogg of Indiana, praying a pension; also, the petition of Michael Seas, praying his name may be reinstated on the pension roll: referred to the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions.]

[Mr. RARIDEN presented the petition of the citizens of Lagrange and Noble counties, in the State of Indiana, for a post route from Bronson's Prarie, on the Chicago road, in Michigan, via Barnsides Mills, Union Mills, Prentiss's and Coeran's Mills, to the post office at Kindlesville.

On motion of Mr. RARIDEN, all the petitions for new mail routes presented by him at the last session, and not acted upon, were recommitted to the Committes on the Post Office and Post Roads.]

Messrs. BROWN and THOMPSON, of Mississippi.

Messrs. STEWART and REYNOLDS, of Illinois.

[Mr. REYNOLDS presented the petition of Mr. Dudley W. Duncan of William county, Illinois, praying athange of entry of land, a mistake hav. ingle n made in the first purchase: referred to the Committee on the Public Land..]

[Mr. STUART presented the following petitions: Of John B. Fulkest, praying a pension for the ser. vices of his father in the war of the Revolution.

Of sundry citizens of Ilinois, praying the establishment of a daily mail from Terre Haute to Peoria, and a tri-weekly mail from that place to Rock Island.

Of Latter Day Saints, commonly known as Mormons, for the redress of certain grievances committed against them in the State of Missouri.] STEAMBOAT DISASTERS.

Mr UNDERWOOD presented five petitions, to wi: From Henrietta Hope and 56 others, ladies of Baltimore; from Emily G. Fulton and 67 others, ladies of Baltimore; from John Coates and 62 others, of Chillicothe, Ohio; from Seth Lockwood and 130 otters, of New York; and from Cap'. Geo. Gayther and 158 others, passengers on board the steamboat Columbia, praying Congress to act upon the bills reported to the select committee at the last session to prevent steamboat disasters.

Mr. U. said that after the bills to guard against steamboat disasters had been reported by himself during the last session, he had requested Mr. Raub and Dr. Vantyne to ascertain the number of steamboat disasters which had occurred within the last ten years, their nature, and the destruction of life and property on board; from which document it appears (as Mr. U. informed the House) that the whole number of disasters which Dr. V. had been able to obtain information concerning was 185, that the number of lives lost was 1,733; the number of wounded was 379: of these, there were killed by explosions, collisions, and fires, on the Mississippi and its tributaries, 991, and wounded 260; on sea and tide water, deaths from the same causes 368, wounded 94; on the lakes, deaths from the same causes 85, wounded 4.

Mr. U. stated that the information, as far as it went, was no doubt accurate; but it did not embace, as the letter showed upon its face, the extent of the mischief. It was, however, an important document, and he hoped the House would print it. For bimself, he felt under obligations to its author for the diligence and talent manifested in its preparation.

A select committee was raised, on the motion of Mr. U. to whom the five petitions, the letter of Dr. Vantyne, and the report and bills of the select committee at the last session on the subject of steamboat disasters, were referred, and the letter of Dr. Vantyne was ordered to be printed.

Whils petitions were being presented

Mr. BREWSTER, in pursuance of notice heretofore given, asked leave to introduce a bill for the improvement of certain harbors..

Objection was made to granting leave to introduce this bill.

And, on the question of leave, Mr. FILLMORE called for the yeas and nays; which were ordered.

It was then suggested that leave could not be given while petitions were being presented, to in. troduce a bill; and as there was considerable opposition to the introduction of the bill at this

ume

Mr. BREWSTER withdrew his application until the States should be called for resolutiors, when it would be in order to make the motion.

During the presentation of petitions, the following notices for leave to introduce bills were given,

VIZ:

By Mr. MONTGOMERY: Of a bill to change the mode of disposing of the public lands.

By Mr. STANLY: Of a bill to provide for the payment of the fourth instalment to the State; as soon as the public debt is paid, and to release the States from all obligation to return the three instalments already paid.

By Mr. THOMPSON, of Mississippi: Of a bill to revive the ac's of 1837, 38, for appointing commissioners to adjust certain claims under the 14th article of the Choctaw treaty of 1830.

By Mr. CROSS, of Arkansas: Of a bill making an appropriation to complete the removal of the raft of Red river, and for other purposes.

Also, of a bill to confer upon the District Court of the United States for the State of Arkansas, Circuit Court jurisdiction in certain cases.

By Mr. BARNARD: Of a bill for a uniform system of bankruptcy.

Also, of a bill making an appropriation for the improvement of the navigation of the Hudson river.

By Mr. LANE: Of a bill to confirm to the State of Indiana the lands selected by said State for the continuation of that portion of the Wabash and Erie Canal that lies between the mouth of the Tippecanoe river and Terre Haute, and for other purposes.

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.

Mr. MONROE, under the notice heretofore given, obtained leave to introduce a bill entitled "An act to abolish imprisonment for debt in certain cases;" which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. M. remarked that the subject was one of much importance, and he hoped the House would take speedy action upon it for the benefit of the South.

Mr. CRABB denied that the bill was more for the benefit of the South than the North.

Mr. MONROE said he had as much respect for the South as any body; and that he held a letter in his hand stating the fact that some of the citizens from the gentleman's district were now confined in the New York jail.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky, under the notice heretofore given, obtained leave to introduce a bill to regulate the forms and modes of proceeding in the courts of the United State, to regulate the fee bills, and to limit the emoluments of certain officers; which was read, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. DELLET, under notice h retofore given, obtained leave to introduce a bill to complete the improvements in the harbor of Mobile; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce.

On motion of Mr. WILLAMS of Connecticut, Resolved, That the papers on file, relating to the peition of Eunice Clark, praying to be allowed the arrearages of pension of which her late husband was deprived by being wrongfully stricken from the pension roll, be now referred to the Committce on Revolutionary Pensions.

On motion of Mr. GRINNELL,

Resolved, That the Committee on Commerce be directed to inquire into the expediency and practicability of erecting a light-house or Southeast point of Coreysfort reef, on the coast of Florida. On motion of Mr. E. DAVIES,

Resolved, That the Postmaster General hereby is required to inform this House whether Ralph Jackson is a contractor for carrying the mail in the State of Illinois; who are his sureties, or who is responsible to the Department for any failure on his part to fulfil bis contract,

On motion of Mr. GATES,

Resolved, That the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions be directed to inquire into the propriety of increasing the pension of widow Lydia Hoord. On motion of Mr. TRUMAN SMITH of Connecticut,

Resolved, That the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions be directed to inquire into the expediency of granting to Ebenezer Johnson a pension for services rendered by him during the war of the Revolution.

On motion of Mr. GALERAITH,

Resolved, That the Committe on Revolutionary Pensions inquire into the expediency of extending the act of Congress of the 7th of July, 1838, entitled "An act granting half pay and pensions to certain widows," for another period of five years; and, also, into the expediency of extending the proVisions of the act of 7th June, 1832, entitled "An act supplementary to the act for the relief of certain remaining officers and soldiers of the Revolution," so as to grant pensions to those who served at any time previous to the treaty of Fort Grenville, in August, 1795; and that said committee report by bill or otherwise.

On motion of Mr. SMITH of Maine,

Resolved, That the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions be directed to inquire into the propriety of placing the name of Joseph Veazie upon the roll of Revolutionary pensioners.

On motion of Mr. EVERETT,

Resolved, That the Committee on Invalid Peasions be instructed to inquire into the expediency of granting a pension to Beriott Wright, a soldier in the late war with Great Britain, and that his papers on file be referred therewith.

On motion of Mr. SMITH of Connecticut, R solved, That the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions be directed to inquire into the expediency of granting to Jemima Brisbee, widow of Elisha Brisbee, an increase of the pension allowed to her by the Pension Office, for the services of her husband during the war of the Revolution, in conformity to evidence now on file in said office.

On motion of Mr. FILLMORE,

Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to communicate to this House, (if not in his opinion incompatible with the public interest,) all the correspondence between this Government and that of Great Britain, or the officers and agents of either, or the officers and agents of this Government with the President or any of its Departmen's, which has not heretofore been communicated to this House, on the subject of the outrage of burning the Caroline on the Niagara frontier; and whether there is any prospect of compensation being made to the owner of said boat for the loss thereof; and also whether any communica tions have been made to this Government in regard to the arrest and imprisonment of - McLeod, by the authorities of the State of New York, for being concerned in said outrage; and if so, that he communicate a copy thereof to this House. On motion of Mr. SMITH of Maine, Resolved, That the Committee on Invalid Pensions be directed to inquire into the expediency of placing upon the roll of invalid pensions the naine of Dan el Cuore, of Portland, Me.

On motion of Mr. GRINNELL, Reeolved, That the Committee on Commerce be instructed to inquire into the expediency of entering into negotiations with the British Government, for the purpose of erecting a light-house on the Little Isaacs, and of placing such buoys on the Bahama banks, as may diminish the danger of this difficult navigation.

Mr. FILLMORE submitted the following reso Intion, which was referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and ordered to be printed:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representalives of the United States in Congress assembled, (two-thirds of both Houses deeming it necessary,) That the following art cle be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which article, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be yalid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constituijer:

"The six years' term of service prescribed in the Constitution for United States Senators, and the two years' term for which members of the House of Representatives are to be chosen, shall commence on the first day of December instead of the fourth day of March.

"Those Senators and Representatives who shall be in office when this amendment shall be adopted as a part of the Constitution, shall hold their of. fices respectively until the first day of December next after the fourth day of March when their offices would expire had this amendment not been made."

On motion of Mr. BRIGGS,
The House then adjourned.

IN SENATE.

TUESDAY, December 22, 1840. Mr. PIERCE presented the memorial of Daniel Pettibone; which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.

On motion by Mr. PIERCE, the petitions and papers of Samuel Jamison, John S. Billings, Samuel Crapin, John McClanahan, the widow of Samuel Allen, the widow of Jenas Snow, and of Mary Neal, now on the files of the Senate, were referred to the Committee on Pensions.

Mr. BUCHANAN presented a letter from a number of citizens of Pailadelphia, who are largely interested in the Agricultural Bank of Natchez, praying for an extension of time for the payment of th: debts due to the Governmen'; which was referred to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. HENDERSON gave notice that to-morrow he would ask leave to introduce a joint resolution to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to extend further indulgence to the late deposite banks.

Mr. DIXON presented a document in relation to the claim of Edward Wade; which was referred to the Committee on Revolutionary Claims.

Mr. CLAY of Alabama submitted the following resolution, which was considered and agreed to:

Resolved, That the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads be instructed to inquire into the expediency of making a just allowance to Stokes and Purdom, mail contractors on the route from Tuscaloosa to Courtland, Alabama, for the period between the first of March and the first of June, 1839, during which one third of their compensation has been withheld.

Mr. C. als presented documents in relation to the claim above alluded to, which were referred to the same committee.

Mr. MANGUM presented the petition of a number of mechanics engaged on the arsenal in North Carolina; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

Mr. BUCHANAN presented a copy of the proceedings of a meeting in Philadelphia, numerously attended, and which asked for the favorable action of Congress in relation to the claim for French spoliations prior to 1800; which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. LINN, in pursuance of previous notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill for creating a new land district in the State of Missouri, and for changing the boundaries of the Southwest and Western land district in said State; which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on the Public Lands.

Mr. HENDERSON, in pursuance of previous notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill for the relief of certain railroad companies therein named; which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on Finance.

Oa motion by Mr. HUBBARD, the petition of Francis Gehon, and the petition of James M. Morgan, now on file, were referred to the Committee on Claims.

Mr. BENTON presented the petition of Themas Clark; which was referred to the Committee on Claims.

On motion by Mr. DAVIS, the documen's in relation to the claim of the Nantucket Steamboat Company, now on file, were referred to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads.

Mr. STURGEON presented the memorial of Henry Simpson; which was referred to the Committee on Claims.

On motion by Mr. S. the petition of John C. Reynolds, now on file, was referred to the Com mittee on Indian Affairs.

Mr. CALHOUN, in pursuance of previous notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill for the relief of the representatives of Captain John Williams, late of North Carolina; which was twice read, and referred to the Committee on Revolutionary Claims.

Mr. C. also, on leave, introduced a bill to cede the public lands within the limits of the new States on certain conditions therein named; which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

THE CHARTER OF TEE CITY OF WASHINGTON.

Mr. NORVELL, pursuant to notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill to amend and continue in force an act for the incorporation of the city of Washington. The bill was read twice, and Mr. N. moved its reference to a select committee.

Mr. MERRICK objec'ed to such a reference. True, a bill of a similar character had been so referred the last session of Congress, to which he had consented, because, at that late period of the session, he did not think it possible that the Committee on the District of Columbia could give it such attention as it required to mature it; but now, at the commencement of a session, he hoped this bill would be referred to the appropriate committeethat on the District of Columbia.

Mr. NORVELL, after some remarks on the constitution of the present Committee on the District of Columbia, said his wish was to place the bill in the haids of a committee that would be favorable to its objects. It was his misfortune, at the last session, in reporting this bill from the select committee to which it had been referred, to have overlooked an omission of the copying clerk, which had since been made the foundation of an accusation against him and other Senators who composed that committee. He desired, therefore, the reference of this bill to a select committee, that he might have an opportunity to set himself right on that point.

Mr. MERRICK said the Senator from Michigan would have ample opportunity to set himself right, and to explain this omission in the bill of last session, whenever the bill came up for discussion before this body. He did not know how that Senator could undertake to assume that the Committee on the District of Columbia was hostile to a new charter, for there had been no evidence to justify the assumption. The committee of the last session-and the committee of this session was composed of nearly the same members-if he recollected right, were in favor of a re modification of the charter, but there was not time to enable them to obtain the necessary information on which to report a bill; and he hoped now there was to be no party organization in reference to the charter for this part of the District of Columbia. It was true that the present standing committee consisted exclusively of Whigs, which was a proof that the gentleman who appointed them had confidence in those appointed, that they would do their duty fairly and faithfully; and he kaew of no reason now why there should be such a gratuitous assumption that the committee was hostile to the measure, and that therefore it should not have its appropriate reference. He wos'd act on every question on i's merits, and he would not inquire to what party the memorialists might belong

Mr. NORVELL had no intention to prolong the discussion. In reference to the remarks of the Senater from Maryland, that he should disregard party influence, and did not look at party distinctions, he (Mr. NORVELL) was not solicitous to proclaim sentiments of that character. It was well known there were certain principles on which parties in this country were divided, and it was not for him 10 admit that he had no party bias: he had a decided party bias, and whenever questions were presented to him in which the distinctive party principles were involved, it would govern his action. If it had not been so if it had not been that there were party distinctions-he and the honorable gen. tleman from Maryland might not have occupied their present positions. He asked for the ayes and noes on the question of reference.

Mr. CLAY of Alabama hoped the gentleman

from Michigan would be gratified, when certain facts were known, which had intervened between this and the last session: he thought it was due to that gentleman that a select committee should be appointed. It was manifestly the leading motive of the friends of the bill at the last session to extend the right of suffrage to many who had before been deprived of it: the bill was ordered to be engrossed, but, in the copying, one or two clauses had been accidentally omitted, and the omission was only discovered when it was too late to rectify the error, unless by unanimous consent, which was not obtained, as a gentleman on the cther side objected. Under these circumstances he (Mr. CLAY) moved to lay the bill on the table with an intimation that at the present session it would be brought up again. But what use bad been made of this? Why it hal been published through this Union, that he and his friends had attempted to introduce into a bill respecting the District of Columbia, the principle of Abolition. Yes, the false and slanderous charge had been copied into every dirty party sheet, and in his State especially, it had been imputed to him-falsely and slanderously imputed to him-and not only to him, but the same accusation had been made generally against his colleague and the friends of universal suffrage who voted with him. He hoped that this bill would be committed to a special commit'ee, not only because it was according to an established parliamentary principle that a bill should be referred to a committce, a majority of which, at least, was favorable to its principle, but that at all events he and his friends might be permitted to do themselves justice, in view of the accusations of those who had so foully slandered them.

Mr. MERRICK disclaimed any hostili y to the extension of the right of suffrage; and if any accusation had been made gainst the gentleman from Alabama and his friend from Michigan of any intention to do any thing to affect the peculiar interests of the South, it was unjust, and without foundation; and he (Mr. MERRICK) gave the gentlemen his testimony that they were free from any just ground of imputation. He then argued against the reference to a select committee, and denied that it was the practice to refer bills to committees that were known to be favorable to their principle, on the petition of the memoralists. He was cf opinion that this bill should go the usual standing com. mittee for this District, for there were many mat ters to be regulated with which they, from their position, were the most likely to be acquainted; there were many matters that would enter into the considera ion of this bill, which ought not to be overlooked in framing a new charter; it was very im portant that there should be a redistribution of the representative power among the wards of the city according to the population of the different parts of the city, and there were a great many other subjects properly appertaining to the committee of this Distric', and therefore he hop d the select committee would not be appointed.

Mr. PRESTON opposed the special reference, and argued that the bill ought to be referred to the standing committee for the District. He thought the question of an extension of the right of suffrage was one of great importance, and one that required the profoundest consideration. In his own State he had expre sed his opinion that it was a great want of policy to restrict the right of suffrage, except as to color: in a slaveholding S ate, where one-half the working classes were struck out, it seemed to him to be an odious distinction among the whites, and he desired to disfranchise no one. In this principle he acquiesced-his princip'e he advocated. but he had yet, as a Senator, to be convinced whether his South Carolina doctrine was applica ble to the District of Columbia. He would ask the people here what they desire, and look to what extent it would affect their institutions, their habits, their prejudices, and their dispositions; he preferred there fore that this matter should go to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

Mr. SOUTHARD also advocated the reference of the bill to the Committee on the District of Columbia. On the abstract question of human rights, his opinions could not be mistaken; but they must

recollect they were legislating for this District, which was without representation; and they should look a little further. They must consider who it was here that had a right to vote, and what was their residence here, what was their interest here, and how it would affect the great institutions of the South; and a hundred other questions they must ask themselves, before they decided on a measure of this importance. The Senator might get a special commit es, that would arrive at a conclusion with wonderful rapidity; but he assured him that if it were referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia, that committee would reflect and examine, and then decide according to their best judgments respecting the interests to be affected.

Mr. HUBBARD said, it occurred to him it was unnecessary to discuss the merits of the bill which the committee appointed at the last session reported. That subject was not now before them, but it might be well for the Senate to consider what was the precise question which they had to determine. He had a perfect recollection of the whole history of this affair, and he woull undertake to relate it. It was in consequence of certain resolutions and memorials presented to this House in the month of February, 1840, by the Senators from Ohio, in relation to this very matter, which were referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia-a committee which was constituted nearly as at present-and on which, as late as the 5th of June, no report had been made; that other memorials were presented by the Senator from Michigan, and a special committee was appointed, of which the Senator from Michigan [Mr. NORVELL] was the chairman. Now he [Mr. HUBBARD] as the chairman of the Committee on Claims would be glad to be relieved from the consideration of many claims, by their reference to a select committee; and he believed the Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. CRITTENDEN,] and the Senator from Maryland, [Mr. MERRICK,] assented to, if they did not recommend, the appointment of a select committee on this subject. The very reason why a bill should be kept before a standing committee which had it in its care, would induce him to desire that this bill should again go to a select committee, which had had it in its consideration. He thought it was not too much to ask for this. The select committee, of which the Senator from Michigan was the head, had had the memorial, on which this bill was based, in their care; they had made a report thereon, and he did think the subject should be kept where it was last session.

Mr. MERRICK replied.

Mr. KING had listened attentively to the remarks of the Senators, and he was surprised to find so much importance attached to the reference of this till to either a select or a standing committee. They had heard of party and party legislation for this District, which had no political influelce or power; but when he appointed the standing committee for this District it was certainly with no manifestation of party feeling, for the members of the committee were all of the political paity adverse to that to which he belonged. In the appointment of that committee he never thought of party, and he believed there was not a Senator in that chamber that would believe it to be either right or proper to legislate for the District on party principles. But the members of the Slect Committee who had charge of this subject at the last session, had been held up to public indignation because a mistake had been made by a clerk in copying the bill, and they had been charged with the promotion of this as a political game for a political purpose; but it was a base accusation, and it came from a lase source. Every gentleman that knew him, well knew that no c nsideration could induce him to depart from the course he believed to be the correct one from any political consideration; and yet they had been thus arraigned for political purposes; and his friend [Mr. NORVELL] had been cen sured for reporting a charter which it was asserted contained provisions deleterious in themselves, in consequence of the accidental omissions which had been mentioned.

Now he cared but little whether this bill was referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia or to a select committee. If he alone were to decide, he would say, let it go to the Committee on