the District of Columbia-it was their business to examine and guard the interests of the District, and he had no doubt they would do the duty which they owed to their country, which they owed to themselves, and which they owed particularly to the District. He would be perte tly satisfied that the charter should be left to them; but his friends, who had been subject to censure, however, thought they owed it to themselves to have this subject again brought under their control, that they might presen it in the shape which they had intended it should have originally assumed. There was another reason why there should be no delay. The charter of the city had already expired, and memorials had been presented urging its renewal, and the extension of the right of suffrage; and he hoped such a charter would be granted as would be beneficial to the District, giving its inhabitants all the rights that properly belonged to them. The great political contest of the country was over, and there was no object in attributing to Senators principles which they did not hold; and if the standing committee would take it up at an early day, and promptly act upon the bill, he hoped his friend [Mr. NORVELL] would withdraw his propositson. He hoped they should not make any thing like a party contest on a subject into which it ought not to enter. Mr. NORVELL said, in explanation of his own course on this bill, that about five hundred citizens of this District, many of whom did not possess the right of suffrage, had petitioned Congress for the enactment of a new charter, which petitions were refered to the Committee on the Distr.ct; but as several months had elapsed without those memorials being acted upon, a commit. tee of citizens waited upon him, and requested that he would present another memorial, and move its reference to a select committee; and in pursuance of that and repeated requests subsequently, he had made the proposition which he submitted at the last ses ion, and not because he desired to take upon himself the labor of such a committee, and of examining the subject so fully as would be necessary to enable him to prepare and perfect the measure; for he had enough to do on two other important committees of which he was a member. He repeared, he acted in pursuance of the desire of those whom the committee was appointed to represent, most of whom were dives ed or the right of suffrage; and in doing so, had he done any thing but justice to those ciuzens? He was also desirous to say that he was unwilling to allow the statement to remain uncontradicted, that he was, or ever had been, hostile to the interests of any class of citizens of the city of Washington or of the South; so far from being hostile to the Destrict, he had taken his scat but for a very few days, the first session he sat there, before he expressed his desire to give the se people a Representative, or a Delegate, similar to the Territories, on the avowed principle that it was neces-ary to induce the two Houses to pay proper attention to their interests. Ard at the same time, he seconded, to the extent of his ability, resolu jons respecting the peculiar interests of the South, and going the full lengh with the Southern gentlemen, in regard to the disposition which they had thought proper to make of the appl cations to the Senate to interfere with those interests. Having been particularly acquainted for thirty years with a large portion of the people of this District, he had not supposed that now he should be charged with hostility to their iaterests. But what was the fat? Why, sir, in a formal and ably written communication, which had been sent to the people of the United States, in the shape of an appeal from the people of this District, an attack had been inade on the select committee, of which he had the honor to be the chairman. In this document, it was alleged that this subject was not in'roduced into the Senate until after the municipal election in June last, and it was in consequence of the result of that election that it had been introduced. Now, was that the fact? Was it not introd ced early in the ses sion, and bad it not been before the committee four months previous to the municipal election? Again, it was alleged that the omissions were intentional omissions, and that the select committee and the majority of that body had aimed a vital blow at the most serious and essential interests of this part of the country. Under these circumstances it was that he felt it to be his peculiar duty to propose the recommittal of this bill to the select committee. Senators over the way seemed to think that only one description of citizens in this city possess ed any righ's. Admitting the class opposed to the extension of the elective franchise to be here the majority, had the minority no rights? Were they to be treated as slaves, to have no voice in the affairs of the city, and their complain's to be disregarded? He hoped not. Mr. CLAY of Alabama hoped his friend from Michigan would now withdraw his motion of reference to a select committee. Mr. NORVELL consented, and then the bill was referred to the standing Committee on the District of Columbia. Mr. NORVELL presented the memorial of citi zens of Georgetown, asking for an amendment of their charter so as to extend the elective franchi.. Mr. MERRICK, in pursuance of previous no. tic, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill au hor zing the granting letters testamentary and of administration to aliens in the District of Columbia; which was read twice, and referred to the Commitee on the District of Columbia. Mr. HUBBARD, from the Committee on Claims, which memorials on the subject had been referred, reported A bill for the relief of Philip Weademan; and A bill for the relief of Walter Loomis and Abel Gav; which were respectively read, and ordered to a second reading. Mr. LINN, from the Comu (on Private Land Claims, to which were referred A bill to continue in force the "Act for the final adjustment of private land claims in Missouri," approved July 19, 1832; and the act supplemental thereto, approved March 2, 1813; A bill to authorize the issue of a patent to the heirs or legal representatives of Francis Rivard, deceased; A bill for the relief of Gregoire Sarpy, or his legal representatives; A bill for the relief of the heirs of Miguel E-lava; Ab for the relief of Sebastian Butcher; A bill co firming the claim of the heirs of Jo seph Themp-on, sr. deceased, to a certain tract of land in Missouri; A b for the relief of the representatives of Pere Bonhomme; A bill for the relief of Joshua Kennedy, assignse of Cornelius McCurtin; and A bill to confirm to George Tacker, his heirs or assignees, a certain tract of land in Alabama; reported the same without amendment, and with a recommendation that they do pass. Mr. FULTON, from the Committee on the Public Lands, to which had been referred a bill to authorize the Legislature of the State of Arkansas to sell the lands heretofore appropriated for the n-e of schools in that Sate, reported the same without amendment, and in favor of its passage. Mr. F. in pursuance of previous notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill for the relef of Henry Wilson; which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on Public Lands. Mr. PIERCE, in pursuance of previous notice, asked and ob'ained leave to introduce a bill to equalize the pay of the army and for other purpo. ses; which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. Mr. PRENTIS3, in pursuance of previous notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill in addition to the act to promote the progress of the useful arts; which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office. Mr. LINN gave notice that to-morrow he would ask leave to introduce a bill for the relief of Adam Stewart. Mr. ANDERSON gave notice that to-morrow he would ask leave to introduce a bill to provide for the allowance of invalid pensions to certain Chero. kee warriors under the 14th article of the treaty of 1835. Mr. NORVELL, from the Committee on Public Lands, to which was referred a bill for the relief of Francis Laventure, Ebenezer Childs, and Linus Thompson, reported the same without amendment. Mr. KING gave notice that to-morrow he would ask leave to introduce a bill for the relief of the le gal representatives of Aaron Vail, deceased, late consul at L'Orient. BILLS PASSED. The following engrossed bills were then taken up on their third reading, read a third time, and passed: The bill amendatory of the act abolishing impri sonment for debt. The bill for the relief of George W. Paschall, The bill to relinquish to the State of Alabamı the two per cent fund reserved by the act for her admission into the Union, to be applied to the mak ing of a road or roads leading to said State. The bill to establish an additional land district in the State of Alabama. The bill for the relief of William Jones.' The bill for the relief of certain settlers on the lic 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 township 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 persous in the State of Arkansas. The bill to quiet the tiles of certain land claimants in the States of Missouri and Arkansas, 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 sixteenth 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 one 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 Ar kansas. 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 Indiaus. Mr. FORTER submitted the following resolu tion, which was considered and agreed to: Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to transmit to the Senate any informa tion in his possession relative to the survey directed by the act of the 12th of June, 1838, entitled "An act to ascertain and designate the boundary lite between the State of Michigan and Territory of Wiskonsan." Mr. RUGGLES submitted the following resolu tion, which was considered and agreed to: Resolved, That the Committee on Commerce be instructed to inquire into the expediency of interdicing by law the allowance of salvage to the offi. cers and crews of revenue cuters and of public armed vessels employed by the Government in affording relief to merchant vessels during the incle ment seasons or at other times. The resolution submitted yesterday by Mr. NORVELL, in re ation to the removal of the chandelier, was taken up, and after some remarks from Mr. N. and Mr. TAPPAN, was laid on the table. And the Senate adjourned. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The SPEAKER laid before the House the fol lowing communications, viz: 1. From the Secretary of the Navy, in answer to a resolution of the House of the 11th of May last, communicating a statement of the officers of the navy on leave or furlough, including passed midshipmen; showing the cause of their absence, the time of its expiration, &c. On motion of Mr. BRIGGS, laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed. 2. From the Secretary of War, transmitting a report of the Commissioner of Pensions, containing information relative to pensioners, applying for a pension, or an increase of pension, required to be laid annually before Congress by the act of May 29. 1830. On motion of Mr. FILLMORE, laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed. 3. From the Clerk of the House, as follows: HON. R. M. T. HUNTER, Speaker of the House of Representatives U. S.: SIR: In obedience to the further order of the House, passed December 21, 1840, "that said report be recommitted to the Clerk, with instructions further to report by what authority, on what vouchers, and through whom, he paid to C. Bulkley he sum of $500; to Bayse Newcomb the sum of $416; and to George Lowrey the sum of $104, for survices 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 handwriting it was filed, and what has be come of the same," I beg leave to report that the account presented by C. Bulkley for services as clerk, &c. amounted to $869 50. On the face of this account was an order, signed by the Chairman of Accounts, to pay $500 to said Bulkley. The account presented by Bayse Newcomb for services as commissioner, &c. amounted to $529. By a similar order written on the face of the [aper, I was directed to pay $416. The account of George Lowrey, as door-keeper, amounting to $104-not being reduced by the committee was directed to be paid by a verbal order. In like manner the sum allowed for payment of witnesses in behalf of Mr. Naylor, amounting to $780, was also directed to be paid by a verbal order, which is the usual mode practised by the committees when accounts are clear and undispu ted. The vouchers give the names and times of at tendance of the witnesses; but having no acquaintance with the handwriting in which they are drawn, I herewith communicate the original papers (Nos. 366 and 356) for the use of the House. The various sums above mentioned, together with one other of $104, for Peter Lewis, were exclosed in separate drafts to the Hon. Charles Naylor, Philadelphia, to be paid out to the respective claimants, as will appear from the letter of the accounting clerk, herewish communicated and marked A. la Mr. Naylor's answer to this letter, he returned $780 76, the sum allowed for witnesses, and also the draft for $104 in favor of Peter Lewis, stating that he did not feel authorized to receive and pay out the same, as will more fully appear from his letter, a copy of which is herewith communicated, and marked B. The sum of $11 50, returned by Mr. Ingersoll, as stated in my former report, and $8:4 76, retureed by Mr. Naylor, have been credited to the contingent fund of this House. All of which is respectfully submitted. HUGH A. GARLAND, Cleak House of Reps U. S. Mr. FLOYD moved a reference of the report to the Committee on Accounts. Mr. SMITH of Connecticut objected to any such reference, and moved a reference to the Commuce on Public Expenditures. After some brief remarks from Mr. FLOYD in defence of his motion, the question of reference to the Committee on Accounts being first in order, was put, and decided in the affirmative. Petitions were then presented by Mr. CROSS, of Arkansas. Messrs. CRABB and DELLET, of Alabama. Mr. UNDERWOOD, of Kentucky. Mr. DENNIS, of Maryland. Messrs. BREWSTER, HOFFMAN, CURTIS, VANDERPOEL, LEONARD, GRINNELL, and WAGNER, of New York. [Mr. WAGNER preseuled the petition of Daniel Cady, and two hundred and fifty-two others, inhabitants of Fulton county, New York, praying for a law to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy ] Mr. REED, of Massachusetts. The SPEAKER then announced reports from committses to be in order. Mr. CASEY, from the Committee on Public Lands, reported a bill for the relief of the owne:s of bounty land warrants granted for military servi. ces in the army of the United S ates in the late war between the United States and Great Britain; which was committed to the Committee of the Whole, and ordered to be printed. Mr. LINCOLN, from the same committee, reorted a bill granting a tight of pre-emption to certain lots in the town of Perrysburg, in the State of Ohio; which was committed to the Committee of the Who'e, and ordered to be printed. Mr. W. C JOHNSON, from the Committee for the District of Columbia, reported a bill to revive and continue the corporate existence of the banks in the District of Columbia; which was referred to the Committee of the Whole, and ordered to be printed. Mr. HALL, from the Committee on Revolutionary Claims, made an adverse report on the pctition of Vincent Vass, praying for bounty lands. Mr. TAL'AFERRO, from the same committee, reported a bill to authorize the payment of seven years' half pay, due on account of the death of Lieut. Jonathan Dye, an officer in the Virginia continental line, and who was killed in the battle of Brandywine; which was referred to the Committee of the Whole, and ordered to be primed. Mr. FRANCIS THOMAS, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, reported a bil entitled "An act concerning navy pensions and half par;" which was referred to the Committee of the Whole, and ordered to be printed. Mr. TALIAFERRO, from the Commitee on Revolutionary Pensions, reported a bill for the relief of James Deatley; which was referred to the Commitee of the Whole, and ordered to be printed. Mr. ANDREWS, from the same committee, reported a bul for the relief of Daniel Starry; which was committed to the Commitee of the Whole, and ordered to be printed. Mr. HAND, from the same committee, made an unfavorable report on the petition of John Grigsby for a pension. On motion of STANLY, Resolved, That the report made by the Committee on Expenditures on the Public Buildings, relatiug to the branch mint at Charlotte, North Carolina, be printed. Mr. RIVES of Virginia moved that the report of the Committee of Elections, on the subject of the contested election case of Messrs. NAYLOR and INGERSOLL, made at the last session, be now aken up. It WAS not his intention to en er into a debate on the subject at that ime, but his object in calling it up was that the House might fix upon some time when it would be convenient to go into the merits of the case. Mr. CRABB objected. Mr. RIVES said, the motion being a privileged one, he had a right to make it. He was, however, surprised at the objection of the gentleman from Alabama, inasmuch as he had stated most distinctly that he had no intention of debating the subject at that time. Mr. FILLMORE hoped that when the subject was taken up, it would not be done until it was convenient for the parties interested to address the House on the subject. He did not know when it would be convenient for them to attend. Moreover, the sitting member was not in his seat. Mr. RIVES said he had seen the sitting member that morning previous to his making the motion, and he presumed there would be no difficulty, so far as that member was concerned, as to fixing a time. Mr. RIVES observed that the sitting number was now in his sea', so that the objection of the gentleman from New York no longer existed. The day for an examination of the case could there. fore be now fixed, and if agreeable, he would propose that it would be the order of the day for tomorrow. But if that would not suit the sitting member, he hoped the gentleman would say what day would be convenient. Mr. NAYLOR had no objection to any course the House might think proper to take on the subject. He was willing to leave the matter in the hands of the House. After some further remarks from Mr. FILLMORE in favor of a pos'por.ement of the subject until after he holidays, Mr. RIVES modified his motion so as to make the report the order of the day for the first Tuesday in January. The motion, as modified, was then agreed to. Resolutions then being in order, The SPEAKER stated that the following resolution offered by Mr. RARIDEN, on Thursday last, would come up firs!: Resolved, That the Committee on Public Lands he instructed to inquire into the expediency of setting apart three hundred thousand dollars per annum of the proceeds of the public lands for the continuation of the Cumberland Road in Ohio to its western termination, to be constructed in a continuous line from East to Wes', and of distributing the residue of the raid proceeds among the several States upon the principle of what is called Mr. Clay's land bill, taking the census of 1840 as the basis of the distribution. The question pending was the motion of Mr. HUBBARD to lay the resolution on the table, and on which the yeas and nays had been ordered. The yeas and nays were then taken, and resulted as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Alford, Anderson, Atherton, Banks, Beatty, Beirne, Blackwell, Burke, Sampson H. Butler, Wil iam O. Butler, Wm B. Campbell, Carroll. Clifford, Coles, Connor, M. A. Cooper, Wm. R. Cooper, Crabb, Craig, Crary, Davce, Edward Davies, John Davis, Dawson, Deberry, Dickerson, Dellet, Doan, Doig, Dancan, Earl, Eastman, Ey, Fine, Fisher, Fieicher, Floyd, Galbraith, Garland, Gerry, Goggin, Griffin, Habersham, Hand, Hawes, Har kins, Hill of Virginia, Hill of North Carolina, Hillen, Hopkins, Jackson, Jameson, Joseph Johnson, Cave Johnson, Nathaniel Jones, John W. Jones, Keim, Kemble, Kille, Lewis, Lowell, McCarty, McClellan, Mc. Clure, McCulloch, McKay, Mallory, Marchand, Medill, Maler, Montanya, Samael W. Morris, Newhard, Nisbet, Parmenter, Paynter, Pickens, Prentiss, Rayner, Rives, Edward Rogers, Ryall, Shaw, Shepard, John Smith, Starkweather, Strong, Sumter, Sveney, Taliaferro, Taylor, F. Thomas, Waddy Thompson, Jacob Thompson, Turney, Vanderpoel, Vroom, David D. Wagener, Warren, Walterson, Jared W. Williams, Henry Williams, Lewis Williams, Joseph L. Williams, and Wise -105. NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Andrews, Barnard, Boardman, Boud, Boits, Breckenridge, Briggs, Brockway, Calhoun, Carr, Carter, Casey, Clark, Cranston, Crockett, Curtis, Cushing, Dana, John W. Davis, Garret Davis, Dennis, Doe, Everett, Filmore, Gentry, Giddings, Goode, Granger, Green, Hammond, Willam S Hastings, John Hastings, Henry, Hunt, James, Charles Johnston, William Cost Jennson, Kempsball, Lans, Leonard, Lincoln, Marvin, Mason, Mitchell, Monroe, Moore, Morgan, Calvary Morris, Morrow, Naylor, Ogle, Osborne, Palen, Parrish, Peck, Pope, Proffit, Randall, Rariden, Reed, R yno ds, Ridgway, Salonstall, Simonton, Slade, Truman Smith, Thomas Smith, Stanly, Stuart, Swearingen, Tillinghast, Triplett, Trumbull, Peter J. Wagner, John White, Wick, T. W. Williams, and Winthrop-81. So the resolution was laid on the table. Mr. PROFFIT asked leave to submit the follow ing resolution: Resolved, That the Committee of Ways and Means be instructed to inquire into the expediency of reporting a bill providing for the expenditure of $150 000 in each of the States of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, during the year 1841, on the Cumberland road. Mr. P. then, in a very animated manner, foretold the direful consequences which he had alleged would ensue, in case the House should not make the appropriation. He declared that the eight States of the Northwestern Territory would unite, and in their indignation would make their way into the hall to obtain their rights by force. He could not conceive why the people of that part of the Union should be treated so. The South got appro priations for its Dismal Swamps and every thing else; so also did the North; but as for his people, and those of the other Northwestern States, they could obtain nothing. Why, said he, are the people of the West to be thus trampled upon? Mr. P. also discoursed on the grievances of the Western people arising from other causes. He then touched upon nullification, the tariff question, etc. and concluded by giving the House a solemn warning, that in case the resolution should be rejected, the people of the Northwest would rise in their might, when their indignation would be an all-consuming blaze, without a particle of smoke, which should destroy all that was not right. Mr. WM. COST JOHNSON, in the course of some very humorous remarks in reply to the member from Indiana, suggested to him that the true and only reason why the Cumberland road had not been completed, was that it had been begun at the wrong end. The right end was in Maryland, between Rockville and Fredericktown; and until the road should be commenced in that quarter, the gentleman, with all the people of the West at his heels, would never be able to obtain an appropriation. Mr. J. concluded by asking the gentleman to accept a mod fication of the resolution, appropriating $80,000 for that portion of the Cumberland road in the State of Maryland between Rockville and the Monocacy. Mr. PROFFIT, after a brief rejoinder, accepted the modification. Mr. HUBBARD was afraid the gentleman from Indiana was going the wrong way to work in order to obtain money for his State. Mr H. said that so far as his own district was concerned, he was sure that nothing could be ob'ained by threats. If the gentleman and his people wanted money, let them open a trade with the Southwest, when, if they made fair bargains, there would be no objec in to taking their pork and whiskey for produce. Taat, in his opinion, would be a far more effectual mode than bringing on a great army to enter the hall for the purpose of obtaining what they wanted by force. He would repeat, let the gentleman's constituents open a trade, and, so far as his district was concerned, he was sure they would be ready to swap with them. The question being on the resolution as mo/fied, Mr. HUBBARD moved to lay it on the table; on which motion the yeas and nays wore demanded and ordered: Mr. HUBBARD then withdrew his motion. Mr. PROFFIT demanded the yeas and nays; which were ordered, and being taken, wie as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Alford, Judson Allen, Atherton, Banks, Beatty, Beirne, Blackwell, Botts, Boyd, Aaron V. Brown, Albert G. Brown, Barke, Sampson H. Butler, William O. Butler, William B. Campbell, Carroll, Carter, Clifford, Coles, Connor, Mark A. Cooper, William R. Cooper, Crabb, Craig, Davies, John Davis, Dawson, Deberry, D. let, Doig, Earl, Eastman, Fine, Fisher, Floyd, Garland, Gerry, Goggin, Griffin, Habersham, Hawes, Hawkins, Hill of Virginia, Hill of North Carolina, Hopkins, Hubbard, Jackson, Joseph Johnson, Cave Johnson, Nathaniel Jones, John W. Jones, Keim, Kemble, Kile, Lewis, Lowell, McCarty, McClellar, McClure, McCulloch, McKay, Marchand, Miller, Montanya, Samuel W. Morris, Nisbet, Parmenter, Parris, Pickens, Prentiss, Rayner, Rives, Edward Rodgers, Ryall, Shaw, Shepard, John Smith, Stanly, Strong, Sumter, Taliaferro, Waddy Thompson, Jacob Thompson, Turney, Vanderpoel, Vroom, David D. Wagener, Warren, Watterson, Jared W. Williams, Henry Williams, Lewis Williams, Joseph L. Willams, and Wise-94. NAYS-Messrs. Adams, John W. Allen, Andrews, Baker, Barnard, Boardman, Bond, Brewster, Briggs, Brockway, Calhour, Carr, Casey, Chittenden, Clark, Cranston, Crockett, Cross, Curtis, Cushing, Dana, John W. Davis, Garret Davis, Dennis, Doan, De,. Duncan, Edwards, Everett, Fillmore, Galbraith, Gentry, Giddings, Goode, Granger, Green, Hammond, William S. Hastings, John Hastings, Henry, Hook, Hunꞌ, James, James n, Jenifer, Charles Johnston, William Cost Johnson, Kempshall, Lane, Lincoln, Marvin, Mason, Medill, Mitchell, Monroe, Mor, gan, Calvary Morris, Morrow, Naylor, Newhard, Ogle, Osborne, Palen, Parrish, Paynter, Peck, Pope, Proffit, Randall, Rariden, Reynolds, Ridgway, Russell, Saltonstall, Simonton, Tuman Smith, Thomas Smith, Stuart, Swearingen, Sweney, Tay. ler, John B Thompson, Ti linghast, Toland, Triplett, Trumbull, Peter J. Wagner, Weller, John Whi e, Wick, Thomas W. Williams, and Winthrop-92 So the resolution was laid on the table. The resolution offered on the 17th instant by Mr. CHRISTOPHER MORGAN, calling upon the Post Master General to furnish a statement of the amount expended by the Department for the services of special agents, was taken up and agreed to. The resolution of Mr. BoTTS, calling for information in relation to Treasury notes and drafts, was also taken up and agreed to. The resolution of Mr. Dawson, calling for information relative to the loss of horses in the Florida war, was next taken up, and with a modification by Mr. J. W. DAVIS, so as to include the Back Hawk war, agreed to. Mr. BARNARD then called up the resolution offered by him, requiring information relative to the aggregate revenue accruing from customs, land, &c &c; and the question being on the adop tion of the same, Mr. BARNARD, with a view of addressing the House upon it on to-morrow, moved an adjournment, which was carried. And the House adjourned. IN SENATE, WEDNESDAY, December 23, 1840. Mr. LIAN presented the petition of Nathan Ranney; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce. Mr. BENTON presented the petition of John Ward and others; which was referred to the Committee on Finance. Mr. HUBBARD presented the petition of Dr. Samuel White; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions. Mr. ROANE presented the petition of Sarah Buzzard; which was referred to the Committee on Reolutionary Claims. Mr. HUBBARD, from the Committee on Claims, to which memorials on the subject had been referred, reported the following bills: A bill for the relief of Daniel Sternrod; A bill for the relief of James M. Morgan; A bill for the relief of Francis Gehon; A bli fr the relief of James H. Reife. These bills were severally read, and ordered to a second reading. Mr. H. from the same committee, to which was referred the memorial of the administrator of George Simpson, asked to be discharged from i's further consideration, and that it be referred to the Committee on Finance; which was agreed to. Mr. BENTON gave notice that to-morrow he would ask leave to introduce a bill to lay a tax on bank notes and other p: per intended for circulation in the District of Columbia. Mr. ANDERSON, in pursuance of previous notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill to provide for the allowance of invalid pensions to certain Cherokee warriors under the 14th article of the treaty of 1835; which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on Pensions. Mr. ROANE, in pursuance of previous notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill to authoriz. the payment of equitable commissions to the agents or attorneys of persons in whose favor awards have been made under three several treaties boveen the United States and certain foreign powers, which awards have been retained in the Treasury in payment of debts due to the United States; which was read twice, and referred to the Cor.mittee on Finance. Mr. LINN, in pursuance of previous notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill for the relief of the legal representatives of Nathaniel Pryor, deceased; which was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. On motion by Mr. CLAY of Alabama, the petition and papers of George Whitman, now on file, were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. PHELPS, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, to which was referred the bi 1 for the relief of Jubal B. Hancock, reported the same with an amendment. Mr. HENDERSON, in pursuance of previous notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a joint resolution for the relief of the sufferers at Natchez by the tornado of May 7, 1840; which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on Finance. Mr. PRENTISS, from the Committee on Ptents, to which was referred the bill in addition to the act to promote the progress of the useful arts, reported the same without amendment. Mr. STURGEON, from the Committee on Revolutionary Claims, to which was referred a memotial on the subject, reported a bill for the reliet of Charles M. Keller and Henry Stone; which was read, and ordered to a second reading. Mr. ANDERSON, in pursuance of previous notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill to provide for the allowance of invalid pensions to certain Cherokee warriors under the 14th article of the treaty of 1835; which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on Pensions. Mr. KING, in pursuance of previous notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill for the relief of the legal representatives of Aaron Vail, deceased, late consul at L'Orient; which was read twice, and, with an accompanying document, referred to the Committee on Commerce. Mr. CLAY of Alabama gave notice that tomorrow he would ask leave to introduce A bill to amend an act entitled "An act to grant certain relinquished and unappropriated lands to the State of Alabama, for the purpose of improving the navigation of the Tennessee, Coosa, Cahaw ba and Black Warrior rivers," approved May 23, 1823, and the several acts supplementary and amendatcry the:etc. A bill making additional appropriation for completing the improvements in Mobile harbor; and A bill providing for the payment of certain claims of the State of Alabama. Mr. NICHOLAS gave notice that to morrow he would ask leave to introduce a bill to authorize the Legislature of Louisiana to sell the lands heret:fore appropriated for the use of schools within that State. On motion by Mr. MERRICK, the petitions of Jacob Graham and John Pritchett, now on fik, were referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs, and the petition of Caspar Weaver was referred to he Committee on the District of Columbia. Mr. LUMPKIN gave notice that to-morrow he would ask leave to introduce a bill for the relief of J. M. Strad r. Mr. WALKER submitted the following resolu tion, which was considered and agreed to: Resolved, That the Secretary of State be directed to communicate to the Senate the returns of the census of this year, so far as received into his office, giving only the aggregate of the population in each State or Territory, designating the number of whites, of free persons of color, and all other persons, in three separate columns, and s'ating how far the returns are incomplete in any State or Territory. ORDERS OF THE DAY. A bill for the relief of sundry citizens of Arkansas, who lost their improvements in consequence of a treaty between the United States and the 26TH CONG.......... 2ND SESS. BY BLAIR & RIVES. Continued from No. 3. Choctaw Indians; A bill to amend an act entitled "An act more effectually to provide for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States and for other purposes; A bill to prevent the counterfeiting any foreign copper, gold, silver, or other coin, and to prevent the bringing into the United States, or uttering any counterfeit foreign copper, gold, silver, or other coin; were considered as in committee of the whole, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. PURSERS IN THE NAVY. The bill establishing the pay and emoluments of pursers in the navy being taken up, Mr. WILLIAMS explained the provisions of this bill. He said it was introduced at the last session, and passed the Senate, but was left with the unfinished business of the other House, and was now again introduced, with the intention to fix and determine the compensation to pursers. As now established, their compensation was forty dollars a month, together with certain privileges and perquisites, which were deemed to be extravagant. One great source of profit to pursers was on articles furnished to sailors-whose wages were scarcely sufficient to induce men to enter the service-which amounted to eight or ten dollars per man. Now as there were from one thousand to twelve hundred pons in a seventyfour, and the purser received from each person from eight to ten dollars on articles furnished, which came out of the wages of the poor sailor, this compensation was deemed extravagant, and it was the wish of Government that it should be abolished, in justice to the sailor, and a reasonable and proper compensation substituted; and with this object, this bill had been introduced. Besides this bill, there had bren others of a similar character prepared during previous sessions, but this differed from them in this respect; they proposed a compensation to the purser something less than was proposed by this measure: this matter of difference, however, had been determined upon for the purpose of s curing to the service the best men, by giving them a fair compensation, and as some equivalent for the loss of the perquisites of which this bill would deprive them, which amounted to the exhorbitant sum of 25 per cent. on necessaries, and 50 per cent. on what were called luxuries, in which were included tea and coffee and sugar. Of the rate of remuneration, he further observed that it was necessary to pay with some liberality the pursers of our navy, inasmuch as they were exposed to risks by losses on the property entrusted to them, for the security of which they were compelled to give bonds, on entering the service, to the amount of $25,000. They were bound to account critically to the Department for the property in their care, and Senators would recollect that during a single cruise, it not unfrequently happened that property of the value of half a million of dollars passed through their hands. It was important, there ore, that Government :hould give such compensation as would secure the services of faithful and responsible and efficient men, while at the same time something was done to relieve the sailors from the oppressive exactions to which they were subjected, which was certainly a great evil, both to the service and to the country. This the present bill was intended to eff.ct, but it would call for a greater sum than heretofore from the Treasury. Mr. HUBBARD did not intend thea to say any thing in opposition to the bill; but it proposed to fix the salaries of the pursers, and to pay them from the Treasury, thereby effecting an entire change in the system, they having been bitherto paid in part by certain perquisites. If it went into operation it would impose a very severe tax on the Treasury; and therefore, especially as the Senate was not fully attended, he hoped it would be laid FRIDAY, JANUARY 1, 1841. -WEEKLY on the table. Whether the salaries were, or were not right, he did not intend to discuss; but he hoped the Senate would not, during this session, undertake to pass a bill effecting such a change, and especially as it would impose so severe a lax on the Treasury, which it was so little able to bear; he, therefore, moved to lay it on the table, and they could take it up on some future day, if the Senator from Maine desired it. Mr. WILLIAMS had no objection to a post. ponement, but he objected to the summary dispo. sition of it, which the Senator from New Hampshire suggested. Mr. HUBBARD said he would call it up again on a future day, if the Senator desired it; but on mature reflection he hoped the Senator would not make such a request. Mr. BUCHANAN hoped so too. There were some provisions in this bill-which, however, he had not been able to examine carefully-to which he had insurmountable objections; he objected to the Government becoming a merchant, and going into the market to buy articles, for the purpose of selling them out again to the sailors. He was opposed to such jobbing; and he believed much of which complaint was made could be got rid of, by compelling the pursers to exhibit their invoices and allowing them a moderate per centage of profit on the cost of the articles. He hoped the bill would be laid upon the table, and never called up again. Mr. WILLIAMS defended the bill, and said that, under its provisions, Government could no more occupy the position of a merchant than at present; and this be iustrated by details of the prevailing practice. After a few other observations, the bill, by consent, was laid on the table for the present. NAVY PENSIONS. The bill to make new provisions respecting navy pensions, and making further provisions in relation to navy pensioners, being taken up, Mr. WILLIAMS explained the necessity or the passage of this bill. Mr. CALHOUN inquired whether he understood correctly that it was proposed to charge the naval pensions on the Treasury, and that the old fund created by deductions from seamen's wages was to ceas". Mr. WILLIAMS said the fund which had hitherto supplied the pensions of seamen was created by the sale of prizes taken by our ships of war, and that system was adopted as early as the year 1800. But in 1815 further appropriat.ons were requisite, and an addition was made thereto; but the contributions from seamen's wages were appropriated to the defrayal of hospital charges. The pensions were extended from time to time, first from the original objects for which they were intended to the widows of officers killed in active service, or who had died of wounds received in service, and then to the widows of seamen who died under similar circumstances. These additions went on, and increased until pensions were given to the widows and children of officers and seamen dying in the service, whether wounded or not. The fund, however, was equal to the claims made upon it up to 1837; but in March of that year, Congress passed a law extending the pensions to widows back to the time of the decease of their husbands, and many went so far back as forty years; one instance he mentioned. He said in the year 1800, a sailing master, who had originally gone out as a sailor, was taken from the merchant service, and in the course of two or three weeks after, the ship into which he was taken was lost. The widow of that man has now established her claim to a pension since the last session of Congress-the law being imperative, and the Secretary of the Navy having no discretionary, power-and she has taken from the Treasury ten thousand dollars for arrearages of pensions since the year 1800. And, again, there were officers in the highest command in the navy, who have had pensions for disabilities VOLUME 9...........No. 4. PRICE $1 PER SESSION. received thirty or forty years ago; there were men now commanding vessels in the navy, and receiving their full pay, who, in addition, are in the receipt of pensions of twenty dollars per month from the pension fund for total disability. All these charges have exhausted the fund, and it was necessary to make provision for the pensions due on the 1st of January. Mr. CALHOUN inquired whether these enormous pensions were to be taken from the Treasury. Mr. WILLIAMS said this bill was intended to cut off all pensions except for disabilities and for the widows and children of officers and men killed or dying of wounds received in the line of their duty. Mr. CALHOUN asked what was the amount of the pension list. Mr. WILLIAMS replied that the whole of the pen. sions now amounted to $120,000, but he believed by this bill it would be from $30,000 to $40,000. This bill would not repeal the old law relating to the creation of the fund, for it would be necessary, if we should have another war; but, by its provisions, pensions hereafter would not be given but for disabilities, and for five years to the widows and children under sixteen of persons killed in battle or dying of wounds received in the discharge of their duty; and it cut off all the pensions now established -such as pensions to the widows and children of men dying a natural death, though they belong to the navy. It also provides that the pensions to be given should only commence from the time the proof was completely established to the claim; and that no person employed by Government; and receiving pay for his services in such employment, should be entitled to a pension. Mr. WRIGHT hoped this bill would not progress further at the present time. It was a bill of great importance, and required the most serious attention of the Senate; and as it was of the same class as the bill just disposed of, he moved that it be laid on the table. He was anxious to go as far as he could go to restrain improvident legislation; and on this subject there appeared to him to have been much improvident legislation. If they were to put the e pensions on a new basis, and make them chargeable to the Treasury, he hoped it would be on some day set apart for the purpose, when they could come prepared to go into the discussion of the whole of these pension lists. After a few words from Mr. WILLIAMS and Mr. WRIGHT, the bill was made the special order for the first Monday in January. PENSION TO HANNAH LEIGHTON. The bill granting a pension to Hannah Leighton being taken up, Mr. PIERCE stated the object of this bill, and the claims of the applicant on the bounty of the Government. Mr. WRIGHT said this was a case which appealed rather to their sympathies than to any established principle. He awarded to the Committee on Pensions, from whom it came, his thanks, and he said they deserved the thanks of the country, for their faithfulness and attention to their duties, and therefore it gave him pain to oppose them on this occasion; but he considered this bill was establishing a precedent for the extension of the pension list that would be fearful and dangerous, and there. fore he could not allow it to pass in silence. Mr. PIERCE said this subject was discussed at some length at the last session, and it would be recollected that the applicant for this pension wasthe widow of the first officer who fell in the war of the Revolution; and under the peculiar circumstances of the case, the committee had recommended the granting of this pension, though differing from the usual principle that of actual service for six months the husband of this poor woman having fallen in the first engagement. Mr. KING recollected the case well, and knew it had been pressed on Congress, because it was a strong case, and one that appealed to their sympathies to depart from the fixed rule of Congress; but if they departed from that rule in one case, where were they to stop? He had before felt compelled to oppose it, and should do so again, from a sense of what he conceived to be right. Mr. CALHOUN said the statements made this day respecting the naval pensions, afforded them a striking lesson how they created new precedents. Plunder, and not pension, was the proper word to apply to many of the sums claimed as navy pensions; and in this class, if they once went beyond the rigid rule of justice, they would open the way to a similar squandering of the public money. He was of opinion that the last man that fell in the Revolution was equally meritorious with the first; and he regretted that the committee had brought forward this proposition, while he awarded to them the praise to which the faithful discharge of their duties had entitled them. He hoped that the Senate would not yield to their feelings of hu manity, but adhere to a strict rule of justice; and hat he might have an opportunity to record his vote, he called for the yeas and nays. Mr. PIERCE said, as this bill had been fully debated at the last session, and passed by a large majority on ayes and noes, he had hoped it would have not been deemed necessary to have called for them now. The force of the remark of the Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. CALHOUN,] that they ought to adhere to a line of rigid justice, he did not comprehend. What had Congress done from time to time? Why, they had extended the pension law, as would be well remembered, to include the widows of such Revolutionary soldiers as were married prior to the expiration of their last term of service. In 1833 it was extended to the widows of such soldiers as married prior to 1794, and now it was known almost to every one in that chamber, that it included the cases of the widows of soldiers who had seen no service, if their names had been enrolled for six months. In his judgment, if the rule of rigid justice had been adhered to, pensions would have been given to the widows of all those who fell upon the field of battle during the Revolution, rather than to those who entered the army near the close of the war, and who had not seen more than six months' 'service, and who, consequently, had not been acquainted with the sufferings and the deprivations of those who participated in the conflict from the beginning. Who could say that rigid justice would not afford relief to this poor widow sooner than to those to whom it was granted under the law of 1836 and 1838? She was in indigent circumstances: the case was a strong one, and appealed to their justice, to their feelings of humanity, and he hoped the small sum proposed to be given to her by the bill would not be withheld. Mr. CALHOUN said he considered the pension list no more than a great system of charity, and he maintained that the pension to men for six months' service was an imposition, and to assume the name of pension was a fraud on the public. It went under the name of charity, but its true name was plunder. Mr. CRITTENDEN said he had been laboring under the impression that this bill had passed through both Houses of Congress at the last session, but he found he was mistaken. It was vain to tell him that this case was the same as every other case-it was vain to tell him that this could be tortured into a precedent which could be abused. It was a case that stood by itself-it was different morally, socially, and in every other point, as this was an application in favor of the widow of the first man that fell in the Revolution, when there was no regularly organized Government. That man, stirred by his own patriotizm, without a country, he might almost say, went forward to make and create, and then to defend that country. Should he then be told that this case would not be distinguished both in the hearts and reasons of men, from the case of others under an organized Government? Such a statement would not reach his understanding, nor his feelings. He hoped this bill would be passed, and that this nation would not longer remain under the reproach of refusing a piece of bread to maintain this poor widow of a Revolutionary officer, who received his death wound under such circumstances. He, too, would call for the ayes and noes, that he might record his vote; and if there were abuses, let those that commit them take the responsibility. Mr. CALHOUN said this happened to be the first case, and the Senator had said it was distinguished from the last. Now it would be recollected that the last case-the man killed by the last gun that was fired in the war of independence, was the gallant Col. John Laurens, who was then acting as a volunteer, and who had rendered important diplomatic services to his country while in Europe; and he believed his family was now in a helpless condition. Now he asked if the case of the last man was not as strong as the case of the first? Was not the case of the man who went gallantly through from the beginning to the end of the contest, and who bore the brunt of the battle, as good as that of the man who fell at the onset? And if they were to go over the cases between those extremes, they would find a thousand instances not much less strong, and all, it would be admitted, making a strong appeal to their feelings. But the Senator said this could not be drawn into a precedent. Did he forget the naval pensions, of which they had this day heard? If this bill were passed, at a future day others would come in, and this case would be appealed to, to show that at such a time, and by such a vote, the Senate had given a pension to the widow of an officer who fell in the Revolution, and Congress would naturally give to all who fell under similar circumstances. He was glad the ayes and noes had been called, for he wished to record his vote; the public had been plundered long enough, and he hoped the system would be brought to a termination. was Mr. WEBSTER said, as there were some Se. nators present who were not here last year, he would relate the circumstances of this case, but he should neither adorn nor illustrate it. All readers of our history know that on the evening of the 18th of April, 1775, the British army left Boston to proceed to Concord, where the colonial stores were collected, to seize those stores. That was the commencement of the war. On the morning of the 19th, this intelligence had been communicated to a considerable distance by the use of torches, tar barrels, and other signals, and before noon of the 19h April, Isaac Davis, an interesting young man, of between eighteen and nineteen years of age, the husband of the applicant, who then the captain of a militia company, was on Before his way to protect the Colonial stores. the British troops could arrive at Concord, they sent forward a party to take possession of two bridges on the Concord river, which were situated three or four miles apart; and, at an early hour, this intention was known for many miles round, and Isaac Davis, with his company, were soon under arms and on their march. They arrived at Concord by a road that led to the lower of these bridges, and there, on the right and on the left, were seen other collections of the militia of Massachusetts; but there was no organization amongst them. Davis, with his company, however, kept on his course, according to his own sense cf propriety; before he reached the bridge, ad. monitory shouts were given to the militia not to approach, and as the admonition was disregarded, the British fired and several men fell. Davis then pressed forward, and as he approached the bridge the British again fired, and he fell; but in the contest that ensued the British were driven back to Boston. His widow, after his death, was married to another person, and acquired the name of Leighton. She was now ninety years of age, was poor and penniless, and her case presented two questions for the consideration of the Senate-whether, on the one hand, the passage of this bill for the relief of this poor old woman would be a plundering of the Government Mr. CALHOUN hoped the Senator from Massachusetts did not intend to convey the impression that he had so characterized it. Mr. WEBSTER did not say the Senator from South Carolina had so characterized it, but he had said that many of the pensions granted for alleged services during the late war were a plundering of the Government. Mr. CALHOUN said there were some excep. tions. Mr. WEBSTER hoped there were many excep. tions. Now what was the danger of this case be. coming a precedent? Were there many such cases? Could there be another such a case? There could not be precisely such another case; and yet, as the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. PIERCE] had said, they had acknowledged the claim of the widows of men who had served but six months, and who consequently furnished a less strong case than this. He thought it a strong case; there was no case like it. He had received communications from as honorable and as high-minded men as were in Massachusetts, requesting him to interest himself in the case of this poor woman; and he hoped something would now be done for her by Congress. Mr. WRIGHT hoped he might be indulged in a few remarks on the subject then before the Senate; and he owed it to himself to say, however much les sensible he might appear to be to the sympathies of the human heart than other Senators who had preceded him, it was with great embarrassment and pain that he opposed a case of this kind; and were it not that he saw in it the introduction into their legislation of a principle of fearful extent, he should not be heard in opposition; but under that consciousness he had opposed it before, and he felt bound to do so again. But he begged permission to say a few words in explanation. He did not question at all the right of the present Committee on Pensions to introduce a new principle into the pension system; he had no doubt that this case had appealed to the strongest feelings of their hears and that they had been induced by their sympathies to present it to the Senate; but he desired to say that it was presented here on a principle new to him in the pension sytem. What had been the basis assumed as the basis of pensions hitherto? Length of service. Upon what principle was the law of 1818 based? If his memory served him right, it was service in the regular army, and for at least nine months. Upon what hypothesis were pensions based then? He could not say positively, for he was not in the Congress at that time, but he had always supposed on the hypothesis that the time of a man had been consumed in the service of his country, and that he had never been remunerated for that service, or that he had been paid in continental paper which was worth nothing; and at that late day, that was the manner in which it was proposed to compensate him for the early service of his life in the perils of that war. That he supposed to be the predication of the pension act of 1818. They passed on then, so far as his memory served him, without any important addition to that act until the year 1828, and then they passed a very important law pensioning a certain class of officers of the Revolution. And on what ground? Why, they had been patriotic enough to peril their lives in the service of their country. Yes: and he (Mr. WRIGHT) was acting at the time that law was passed-it was as a commutation of a promise held out to them by the old Congress, which had either not been fulfilled or not equivalently fulfilled; on that he knew the action of Congress was based, or of the other branch of it, of which he was a member when the law of 1828 was passed. In 1832 again, a much more broad and comprehensive pension act was passed, but he (Mr. WRIGHT) was not then a member of Congress. But what was its peculiar characteristic? First to shorten the term of service from nine to six months, and to comprehend the militia, as well as the regular army. These, according to his recollection, were the features of that law-a term of service, sacrifices, and loss of time, which had not been compensated for, was the predication of that law. Well, then, so far, pensions were confined to persons who had performed service, and they had not then departed from that principle either in favor of widows or heirs. In 1836, another pension law was passed, and a most significant and important law it was. He was a member of this body at the time, and he felt it to be a just reproach uƒ• |