26TH CONG.......... 2ND SESS. BY BLAIR & RIVES. Continued from No. 5. commence hostilities for the supposed wrong, she would find in the citizens of Western New York the same blood as in 1812; she would find men who were neither to be bought by British gold, nor by British influence, and only to be bought by their love of country. He for one had no fears that this nation would ever crouch to the British lion. She would calmly and dispassionately execute the laws of her several States, and it need not be feared that either this Government or the States would ever quail. Mr. G. then renewed the call for the previous question, which was seconded by the House. The question then being put on the motion to refer, was decided in the affirmative. So the message, with the documents, were referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES. Mr. GOGGIN, from the Committee on Military Affairs, asked that that committee be discharged from the future cousideration of the petition of William Glover, and that it be referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions; which was accordingly done. Mr. ANDERSON, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, reported a bill to make new provisions respecting Navy pensions, and to repeal certain acts relating to Navy pensions; which was twice read and committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. ANDERSON said he was directed by the Committee on Naval Affairs to ask that this bill be made the special order for Monday, the 11th instant. After some remarks by Mr. FILLMORE, showing that it was at all times in order to go into Committee of the Whole on the state of Union, Mr. ANDERSON withdrew his request for a special order. Mr. SHEPARD, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, moved to discharge that committee from the petition of the heirs of F. W. Smith, and to refer it to the Committee on Revolutionary Clains; which was ordered by the House. Mr. FINE, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, made a detailed report on the case of John Morgan, a case of French spoliation prior to 1800. The report was committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the bill relating to French spoliations. Mr. PICKENS said he was instructed by the Committee on Foreign Affairs to move that the House to-day at 2 o'clock go into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union on sundry bills reported by that committee; A bill to regulate the allowance for extra services rendered by Secretaries of Legation and Consuls; A bill to refund certain duties in the case of the French ship Alexandre; and A bill concerning tonnage duty on Spanish vessels. The motion of Mr. PICKENS was disagreed to. Mr. HAWES, from the game committee, made an adverse report on the case of Basil Spalding; which was laid on the table. Mr. EDWARD DAVIES, from the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions, reported a bill for the relief of Jabez Collins: twice read, and committed. Mr. HAND, from the same committee, reported a bill for the relief of John Forter; which was twice read, and committed. Mr. H. also made an adverse report on the case of Sarah Graves; which was laid on the table. Mr. PECK, from the same committee, made an adverse report on the case of Rineholdt Trougott; laid on the table. On motion of Mr. PECK, the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions was discharged from the inquiry as to an extension of the pension act of 7th July, 1838, for the benefit of widows to another period of five years; and, also, to an extension of WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1841. -WEEKLY the act of 7th June, 1832, to those who served at any time previous to Wayne's treaty; and it was committed to the Committee of the Whole to which bills upon the same subject are committed. Mr. STRONG, from the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions, moved that the said committee be discharged from the cases of Hannah Sturtevant and John Conking; which was agreed to. Mr. S. reported adversely on the cases of Richard Perry, Anna Swinerton, Daniel W. Church, and James S. Hall: laid on the table. Mr. TALIAFERRO, from the same committee, reported A bill for the relief of Catharine Allen; A bill for the relief of Ellen Turney; which were read a first and second time, and committed. Mr. DOAN, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported A bill for the relief of Thomas Collins; and A bill for the relief of Thomas Wilson; Which were twice read, and committed. Mr. DOAN also reported adversely on the cases of John Vanslyck, Patrick O'Ferrall, Ebenezer Pierce, and Robert Whittel: laid on the table. Mr. PALEN, from the same committee, reported a bill for the relief of David A. Baldwin; which was twice read, and committed. Mr. CHITTENDEN, from the same committee, reported A bill for the relief of Jacob Jackson; A bill for the relief of Emanuel Shrope; and A bill for the relief of Joseph M. Rhea; which were read a first and second time, and committed. Mr. C. also reported adversely on the cases of Samuel Neely and Francis Griffith; laid on the table. On motion of Mr. TILLINGHAST, the Com mittee on the Library was discharged from the resolution directing an inquiry into the propriety of furnishing printed documents, the Register of Debates, and all other publications by erder of Congress, to State Legislatures. Mr. BROWN of Mississippi, from a select committee, reported a bill for the relief of David W. Haley; was twice read, and committed. Mr. RUSSELL, from the Committee on Claims, made an adverse report on the cases of George Gale, Raymond A. Henderson, R. C. Langdon, and James Maguire. Mr. R. also reported, without amendment, the bills from the Senate for the relief of Jacob Seeley and of William P. Rathbone; those bills were then severally committed. Mr. R. also reported A bill for the relief of Lieut. John L. Cline; A bill for the relief of the legal representatives of James Maglenei; A bill for the relief of William Bailey, survivor of Bailey and DeLord; and A bill for the relief of the legal representatives of William D. Cheever. Mr. GIDDINGS, from the same committee, reported a bill for the relief of Benjamin C. Roberts; which was twice read, and committed. Mr. G. also reported adversely on the cases of Charles Howe, Benjamin Reynolds, E. F. Gilbert, and John P. Baldwin; laid on the table. Mr. G. also reported adversely on the cases of John Trafton, John G. Perkins, James Perkins, and Joseph Perkins; Henry Holbrook, Samuel T. Anderson, Joshua Hillyard, Elijah S. Bell, James Frazer, David Bartlett, Samuel Holgate, Joseph S. Thomas and Landon C. Peters, Sylvester Churchill, and Charles M. Hillyard; which were laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. Mr. JONES, of New York, from the Committee on Revolutionary Claims, reported adversely on the cases of the representatives of James Purvis, Rebecca Brown, and John Henry. Laid on the table. VOLUME 9...........No. 6. PRICE $1 PER SESSION. Mr. PARMENTER, from the same committee, reported adversely on the case of Hannah Ruble.. Laid on the table. Mr. RANDOLPH, from the same committee, reported adversely on the cases of Susan Underwood, P. Kinsolving, Stephen and Richard Livingston, and Samuel Jones. Laid on the table. Mr. R. also reported a bill for the relief of the legal representatives of Captain David Noble; which was twice read, and committed. Mr. DELLET, from the Committee on Private Land Claims, reported a bill to relinquish to William Waller the interest of the United States in a certain tract of land therein named. Twice read, and committed. Mr. D. also reported, without amendment, the bill from the Senate for the relief of William Jones; which was then committed. Mr. TALIAFERRO, from the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions, reported the bill from the Senate for the relief of Hannah Leighton, without amendment. The bill was then committed to the Committee of the whole House. The motion to print the extra copies lies over. IN SENATE, TUESDAY, January 5, 1841. The PRESIDENT submitted a communication from the Governor of the State of Missouri, transmitting a copy of a law of that State for the settlement of the boundary between Missouri and Iowa. On motion by Mr. PENTON, the bill was ordered to be printed, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Also, a communication from the Treasurer of the United States with a statement of the contingent expenses of the Post Office Department; which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. Also, a communication from the Navy Department, transmitting six y copies of the Navy Register for 1840; which was laid on the table. Mr.TALLMADGE presented the memorial of citizens of the city of New York, praying the passage of a general bankrupt law; and A similar memorial from citizens of Lockport, New York, which, as a bill has been reported, were laid on the table. Mr. SMITH of Indiana presented resolutions of the Legislature of the State of Indiana, instructing their Senators to endeavor to procure the passage of a law by Congress to confirm the selection of lands along the Wabash and Erie canal made by Indiana, in lieu of Indian reservations; which was referred to the Committee on Roads and Canals. Mr. BUCHANAN presented six memorials from merchants and citizens of Philadelphia, praying that the spirit portion of the navy ration may be abolished, and the substitution of tea or coffee therefor; which were referred to the Committee on Pensions. On motion by Mr. NORVELL, the memorial of citizens of Michigan, praying for the imposition of a duty on fish imported from the Canadas, now on file, was referred to the Committee on Commerce. Mr. STURGEON gave notice that, to morrow, he would ask leave to introduce a bill making a small appropriation for the Patent Office. Mr. LINN presented the petition of Nathan Ranney; which, as a bill had been already reported for his relief, was laid on the table. Mr. L. also presented the petition of Littleberry Sublette; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands. Mr. PRENTISS presented the petition of citizens of Hardwick, Vt. praying for the abolition of slavery and the slave trade in the District of Columbia and Territories of the United States; the motion to receive which was, On motion by Mr. KING, laid upon the table. Mr. WRIGHT presented a memorial from a number of citizens of New York, praying the passage of a general bankrupt law; which was laid on he table. Mr. W. also presented a memorial numerously signed by citizens of New York, remonstrating against the passage of a bankrupt law similar in its provisions to the one passed at the last session; which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. Mr. WHITE presented the petition of a number of settlers on the public lands, praying that preemptions may be granted to lands settled and cultivated by them; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands. Mr. LINN, from the Committee on Private Land Claims, reported a bill for the relief of the heirs of Madame De Lusser, and their legal representatives; which was read, and ordered to a second reading. Mr. L. also, from the same committee, asked to be discharged from the further consideration of the petition of Richard Higgins, and that it be referred to the Committee on Public Lande; which was agreed to. Mr. L. in pursuance of previous notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill to provide for running and marking the boundary line of a tract of land reserved for the half breeds of the Sac and Fox tribe of Indians; which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. Mr. L. also, on leave, introduced a bill authorizing the Legislative Council of the Territory of Iowa to extend the jurisdiction of justices of the peace in said Territory; which, after some remarks by Mr. SMITH of Indiana, was laid on the table for the present. Mr. L. also, on leave, introduced a bill to aid the Territory of Iowa in completing a penitentiary therein, partly erected; which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. L. from the Committee on Agriculture, to which was referred the petition of the widow of Dr. Henry Perrine, reported a bill for her relief; which was read, and ordered to a second reading. On motion by Mr. L. the Committee on Agriculture was discharged from so much of the peti tion of Dr. Henry Perrine as related to indemnity for Indian depredations, and it was referred to the Committee on Claims. Mr. WALKER, from the Committee on Public Lands, to which was referred the bill relinquishing to the State of Mississippi the two per cent, accruing upon her admission into the Union, reported the same without amendment. Mr. HUBBARD, from the Committee on Claims, to which was referred the petitions of Thomas S. Clark, and the petition of Zadoc Smith, asked to be discharged from the further consideration thereof; which was agreed to. Mr. H. also, from the same committee, asked to be discharged from the further consideration of the claim of the heirs of George Simpson, and that it be referred to the Committee on Finance; which was agreed to. Mr. H. also, from the same committee, to which memorials on the subject had been referred, reported A bill for the relief of the legal representatives of James Williams; and A bill for the relief of Adam D. Steuart; which were severally read, and ordered to a second reading. Mr. GRAHAM, in pursuance of previous notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill to cause monuments to be erected to the memory of Brigadier General Francis Nash and Brigadier General William Davidson; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Revolutionary Claims. Mr. NORVELL submitted the following resolution, which was considered and agreed to: Resolved, That the Secretary of War communicate to the Senate such additional reports as have been received since those formerly submitted, in reference to the construction of the Potomac aqueduc'; and also, such further information as he may have in reference to the kyanizing of timber for the use of said aqueduct. Mr. YOUNG submitted the following resolution, which was considered and agreed to: Resolved, That the Committee on Military Affairs be instructed to inquire into the expediency of providing by law for the vacating of the military reservation by the United States, of Rock Island in the State of Illinois. Mr. STURGEON submitted the following res lution, which was considered and adopted: Resolved, That the Committee on Pensions be required to inquire into the expediency of granting a pension to Margaret Miller, Elizabeth Whiteman, and Martha Climer, and report by bill or otherwise. Mr. LINN submitted the following resolution for consideration: Resolved, That the Secretary of War be requested to send to the Senate a statement of the number and kind of United States troops stationed along the Western frontier, from Fort Snelling to Fort Jesup, and whether in his opinion a military post between Fort Leavenworth and Fort Wayne, on the borders of Arkansas, be not important to the protection of the State of Missouri, from Indian incursion and aggression. Mr. PORTER submitted the following resolution for consideration: Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be requested to inform the Senate in what cases the payment of undisputed claims, arising under the treaty between the United States and the Stockbridge and Munsee Indians, ratified on the 16th May, 1840, has, on presentment at the Treasury, been suspended or delayed, and the cause or causes of such suspension or delay, and particularly that he state such cause or causes in respect to two claims, of $675 each, in favor of Mead, Kellogg and Co. of Detroit, Michigan, assignees in part of Robert Konkapot and John T. Hendricks. BILLS ON THEIR THIRD READING. The bill for the relief of Clemens, Bryan and Company; The bill for the relief of the Plumb Island Bridge nd Turnpike Company; The bill for the relief of John Moore; and The bill in addition to an act for the relief of Walter Loomis and Abel Gay; were severally read a third time, and passed. The bill to refund to Noah Miller, and others, a part of the proceeds of the sale of the British sloop Mary, and cargo, which were captured by them, and libelled and sold for the benefit of the United States, was, after some remarks by Mr. HUBBARD, laid on the table for the present. The bill making compensation to the State of New Hampshire for the services of her militia, coming up on its third reading Mr. CRITTENDEN desired some explanation respecting this bill-he desired to know what act of hostility had justified the expenditure here claimed. Mr. PIERCE said he had hoped that this bill was to encounter no further opposition, and he trusted still that it might find favor even with the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CRITTENDEN.] From 1790, when the first settlement of that portion of the State of New Hampshire known by the name of Indian Stream, was made, down to 1832-3, no question of jurisdiction was ever raised-it was exercised by the State uninterruptedly. Afterwards, by arrangement between this Government and that of Great Britain, the long pending controversy between the two countries, in relation to the Northeastern boundary, was submitted to the arbitration of the King of the Netherlands, who decided in favor of Great Britain; and thus took from New Hampshire a considerable portion of her territory, over which she had exercised unquestioned jurisdiction from the earliest history of its settlement. This award, it was well known, after considerable time had elapsed, was set aside by the United States and Great Britain. Whatever doubt might at any time have existed in relation to the true boundary on that border, in consequence of the imperfect geographical knowledge and inaccuracy of maps of that wild and unfrequented country in its early history, he felt warranted in asserting that there could, with present lights, be no doubt in relation to the jurisdiction of New Hampshire. In 1835, 36, at the period of these difficulties, her right there was as clear as it was in the counties of Merrimack and Rockingham. The state of things in that territory which made it necessary for the Executive of New Hampshire to call out the military force, was produced by the course pursued by the Federal Government, in its negotiations with Great Britain, over which the State of New Hampshire could, of course, exercise no control. The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CRITTENDEN] desired to know more particularly on what ground the State claimed this remunerationif there had been any invasion of her territorywhat was the necessity that warranted calling out the military force-what was the extent of that force, and what would probably be the expense to the General Government, should the bill become a law? Now he (Mr. PIERCE) would with great pleasure give such information as he possessed upon the subject. Doubts having been temporarily cast upon the question of jurisdiction by the award of the King of the Netherlands-the action of the Federal Government and its negotiations, and the civil authorities of the State and Province of Lower Canada came in conflict, and bodies of armed men were found opposed to cach other in support of the judicial process issued by the officers of their respective Governments. The difficulties on the border were thickening. A deputy of the sheriff of the county of Coos attempted to arrest an individual in the Indian Stream territory, by the name of Tyler, and with the aid of two men, Blanchard and Harvy, succeeded Tyler, however, was promptly rescued by force from Smith's custody. Immediately after this, a warrant was issued by a person claiming to be a magistrate of Lower Canada, in the name of the King of Great Britain against the deputy of the sheriff, and Blanchard and Harvey, for attempting to execute process there. By virtue of this warrant, Banchard was taken from his own dwelling-house by a body of armed men, with the avowed purpose of carrying him into Canada for trial, on the charge of having assisted in serving a writ duly issued by the competent authority of the county of Coos. Blanchard, in his turn, was rescued by American citizens-his neighbors. This assault upon the cltizens of Indian Stream by armed men, and the at empt to extend over it the jurisdiction of Lower Canada, was the invasion which, in the judgment of the Governor, made it expedient and necessary to call out the militia, through whose presence further collision was prevented, and the supremacy of the State maintained. There were some of the leading facts in the case, and the State asked reimbursement for the expenses incurred, on the ground that she was sustaining "the jurisdiction of the State and of the United States." Had a regiment of armed men from the province, instead of the small detachment alluded to, marched upon this defenceless territory, and had they been met by the militia of the State under the order of the Executive, no objection would have been raised to this claim. The Governor, perceiv ing the point to which things were rapidly tending, sent a military force promptly to the scene, which arrested further hostility, and, by their presence, probably prevented a general border warfare, and the loss, perhaps, of many lives. This boundary question, so long agitated, was under the exclusive control of the Federal Government. In his judgment, the treaty line should have been asserted years ago, and maintained, if necessary, with all the power of this country-at all events it was the duty of the Federal Government to protect the territory lying within the limits of New Hampshire, and the rights of the citizens upon that tenitory, from this foreign interference and lawless aggression. And since the State found necessary to call out its own military force for the purpose, the Federal Government was not the less bound to defray the expense. He then referred particularly to an elaborate report upon the subject, made to the House of Representatives in 1839 by Mr. HOWARD, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Mr. CRITTENDEN was not satisfied yet that there had been any invasion of the country. There had only been some little controversy with tres passers who were presuming to act under different authority, and the State of New Hampshire had done nothing more than her duty in putting an end to the trespass; but she might have done it by civil process, and it was the duty of the military power to aid the civil power in the service of such process. Mr. HUBBARD said, as he understood the Senator from Kentucky, that gentleman said there had been no invasion of the territory. Now, since the treaty of peace, the territory in question had always been occupied as part of the territory of New Hampshire; in fact, since 1790, Hall's stream was considered the northwestern branch of the Connec ticut river, and that stream was distinctly marked as the boundary line between the provinces of Canada and New Hampshire. But, after the King of the Netherlands made his award, the British atthorities in Canada undertook to exercise authority between that boundary stream and Indian stream; and it was to expel these intruders that the Governor of New Hampshire had found it necessary to call out the militia at an expense of $6 000. This was necessary to the exercise of jurisdiction both by the State and the United States. The State of New Hampshire was interrupted in her peaceable occupancy of that territory, and it became necessary, to maintain their jurisdiction, that the steps should be taken which were resorted to. There was, he believed, no actual loss of lives in the defence of this territory, or of their jurisdiction over it, but that would not change the merits of the question. Mr. CRITTENDEN did not dispute the right of New Hampshire to this territory; but there had been no invasion-there had been nothing more than a resistance to the service of legal process, and not by citizens of Canada alone, but of New Hampshire herself; for there was but one Canadian who presumed to act as a Canadian officer-a Canada justice of the peace, who presumed to issue his warrant for execution on the territory. Did that, then, justify the calling out of the militia, and the mak ing the General Government answerable for the expense? He was glad the amount was but small; it was the principle only which he here wished to be settled; his anxiety was to vindicate American rights and the righ's of her territories, but it did seem to him that there must be some limit fixed to these otherwise unbounded rights of the States and the Territories. Here there was not a man wi h arms in his hands, so far as he understood the statement of the honorable Senators-there was nothing more than what amounted, technically, to a mer trespass by an individual who might have been more cheaply punished by the civil power. Mr. HUBBARD said it became indispensably necessary to call out the military force of New Hampshire to maintain her jurisdiction over this tract of country, which had been invaded in consequence of the act of the General Government. Who referred that question to the King of the Netherlands, by whose award the boundary line of the State was disturbec? Was it New Hampshire? From the time of the treaty of peace, there had been no question about it; but this Government took the question in hand and referred it to the King of the Netherlands to determine where the State line ran, and on that subject the King of the Netherlands made his award, and then the British undertook to take possession of that tract of coustry. What, then, was New Hampshire to do? Was she to permit her citizens to become subject to British authority? Was she to permit Lord Gosford to exercise authority over that territory, and to dispose of so much of the State of New Hampshire to the British Government? He (Mr. HUBBARD) should like to know what she should have done? Here was a large tract of their territory, and how were they to get possession of it, if an order had been given to march a King's regiment into it? Why, they should have called out their militia to expel the invaders, and they would clearly have been entitled to come to the General Government for the repayment of the expense incurred. And where, then, was the difference? The moment the King of the Netherlands decided upon a different boundary line, the British assumed exercise authority over it, and to deny the authority of New Hampshire. What, then, were they to do but that which they had done, and which was made necessary to be done, in consequence of the act of the General Government; and the only difference was, that, because a King's regiment was not ordered upon this territory, and because there had been no bloodshed, New Hampshire was not to be remunerated for the expense incurred. That was not done; but civil jurisdiction was exercised over the territory by Great Britain; and to reassert their boundary, which was as well defined as the road to the President's House, it was found necessary to call out their militia, and since that had been done, they had been in the peaceable possession of the territory. Under these circumstances, it was for the Senate to decide whether the State of New Hampshire should be reimbursed the unavoidable expense which she incurred in consequence of the act of the General Governmet. Mr. CLAY of Kentucky would like to have some further opportunity to examine this case. There were one or two questions which suggested themselves to his mind: whether there had been an actual invasion of this territory by a foreign power was one; and if not, was there a threatened invasion, or imminent danger of an invasion? And then there was another question: supposing there was a threatened invasion, was there time to apply to the General Gcvernment to repel this threatened invasion? for to the General Government belonged the decision whether there should be peace or war. No case less than one of extreme urgency would justify the Sate authorities in deciding on a question of a threatened invasion, and incurring an expense which perhaps the General Government might not think proper. It seemed to him (Mr. CLAY) that it was proper to ascertain all these facts: had there been a military invasion? had there been a threatened invasion? and if so, what had New Hampshire done under the circumstances? Would it not be extending to the State authorities the power of the General Government, if there was time to communicate with the General Government, if, without the countenance of the General Government, they undertook to engage in a conflict with another power? All these matters were worthy of inquiry; and therefore, he would suggest the propriety of laying the bill for the present on the table. Mr. HUBBARD, in the mean time, would refer Senators for information to a report made by Mr. HOWARD, the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations in the House in January, 1839. Mr. CLAY said he would take an opportunity to examine it. The bill was then laid on the table. The bill making compensation to the State of Maine for the services of her militia, was read a third time and passed. GENERAL PROSPECTIVE PRE-EMPTION LAW. The bill to establish a permanent prospective pre emption system, in favor of sealers n the public lands, who shall inhabit and cultivate the same, and raise a log cabia thereon, being the special order of the day, was taken up, and amendments thereto were offered by Messrs. CLAY of Alabama, CRITTENDEN, TAPPAN, PORTER, and PRENTISS, which gave rise to an extended debate. At 4 o'clock, the Senate adjourned. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communications, viz: 1. From the Governor of the State of Missouri, transmitting a copy of an act of the General Assembly of the State of Missouri, entitled "An act for ascertaining and settling the northern boundary line of the State of Missouri." Referred to the Committee on Territories, and ordered to be printed. 2. From the Post Office Department, transmitting, in obedience to the 2d section of an act making appropriations for the civil and diplomatic exTM penses of Government, approved 9th May, 1836, a statement of the disbursements made from the contingent fund of the Post Office Department from the 1st January to the 31st of December, 1840. Referred to the Committee on Public Expendi tures, and ordered to be printed. 3. From the Post Office Department, in pursuance of the 25th section of the act of the 2d of July, 1836, transmitting a copy of the abstract of the offers for carrying the mails, made within the year preceding the 1st July, 1840. Laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. Mr. CALVARY MORRIS offered a resolution making provision for the lunatics in the Washington county jail. Mr. JOHNSON, of Maryland, said that the Committee for the District of Columbia had already reported a bill upon this subject, and it was now upon the SPEAKER'S table. Mr. HUBBARD asked whether there was not a county police to attend to such matters, as there was in other counties. Mr. MORRIS remarked that it was only necessary to visit the prison, to see that something ought to be done. Mr. JOHNSON observed that the Committee for the District of Columbia had, in the bill to which he had just alluded, authorized the marshal for the District to send to the Lunatic Asylum in Baltimore, all such persons as are now confined in the jails of Washington and Alexandria, and all such as may hereafter be committed as lunatics, at the expense of the United States. Mr. MORRIS then withdrew his resolution. PENNSYLVANIA CONTESTED ELECTION. The SPEAKER than announced as the special order, the consideration of the following resolution, reported by the majority of the Committee of Elections, at the last session of Congress, declaring Mr. NAYLOR to have been duly elected as a Representative for the third Congressional District of Pennsylvania. Resolved, That CHARLES NAYLOR was duly elected a member of the House of Representatives for the 26th Congress, from the Third Congressional District in Pennsylvania. Mr. MEDILL thought it no more than just that the other claimant, Mr. INGERSOLL, should also have leave to address the house on the subject. He therefore asked leave to submit the following resolution: Resolved, That the petitioner, CHARLES J. INGERSOLL, be permitted to appear at the bar, and that he, as well as the sitting member, have leave to address this House on the subject of the contested election from the Third Congressional District of Pennsylvania. The question being then taken on this resolution, it was agreed to. Mr. LEWIS WILLIAMS wished to move a reconsideration of the vote by which the resolution had just been agreed to. If Mr. INGERSOLL came here as a claimant for the seat in question, he (Mr. W.) would have no objection to his being heard at the bar. But he understood that Mr. INGERSOLL did not claim a right to the seat. That being the case, it was a question with bim whether Mr. IN. GERSOLL had a rightful claim to the privileges ac. corded by the resolution. Mr. W. concluded by moving a reconsideration of the vote just taken. Mr. MEDILL said that by a reference to the files of the House, it would be seen that besides retitions from a large portion of citizens of the 31 Congressional District of Pennsylvania, a petition had been presented by Mr. INGERSOLL himself, setting forth that he was a candidate at the election, and that it was his firm conviction, if justi e were done, that he would be placed in the seat now accupied by Mr. NAYLOR. That matter was referred by the House to the Committee of Elections; and a few days before the close of the last session, two reports were made from that committee-onefrom the majority, and the other from the minority. One report stated that the sitting member was entitled to his seat, and the other report set forth that he had been elected by fraud. This committee discharged its duty by presenting their views, and by taking all the testimony they could in the case. It now, therefore, remained with the House to decide which of the reports was correct. But, in the face of all this, would the gentleman undertake to say that Mr. INGERSOLL had withdrawn from his claim? He (Mr. M ) had seen nothing whatever which could justify such a belief. He had seen nothing in the public press to that effect, neither had he heard the least intimation of it from any quarter. But, moreover, Mr. INGERSOLL was now present in the House, ready to claim his seat. Mr. FILLMORE desired that the latter portion of the report of the minority of the committee might be read. It was read accordingly. Mr. F. after some preliminary remarks, proceeded to argue that any person contesting the right of a member to a seat, had a right to be heard. He contended that the right to be heard did not result from the fact of a man being a candidate or not. The proper course would be to grant Mr. INGERSOLL a hearing, when he presumed he would be able to enlighten them on the subject as to whether he considered himself a claimant to the seat or not. He (Mr. F.) was in favor of granting a haring to Mr. INGERSOLL, on the simple ground of his appearing to contest the right of the sitting member; and it did not make any difference whether the contestant made any claim to the seat himself or not. He (Mr. F.) would vote against the reconsideration. Mr. BRIGGS hoped the resolution would not be reconsidered. He considered it would be manifest injustice to refuse a hearing to any man who came here to contest a seat with a member who might be in that seat. In his opinion Mr. INGERSOLL had an undoubted right to urge his claim at the bar of he House. Mr. MASON was in favor of the resolution, and hoped it would not be reconsidered. He was in favor of granting every contestant to a seat on that floor, a fair hearing. He desired that Mr. INGERSOLL might be heard, as he was desirous of knowing whether the gentleman claimed a seat in the House by virtue of his election, or whether he appeared only as counsel for the people of Pennsylvania, as contesting the right of the sitting member. Mr. CUSHING said he was also in favor of hearing the petitioner for the reasons stated by the gentleman from Ohio, and also from the reasons on which the petition was based. Mr. INGERSOLL, in his petition presented to the House,at the last session,claimed the seat now occupied by Mr. NAYLOR. That was the record, and the present proceedings was but a continuation of that record. The question was, therefore, what disposition should be made of the memorial of Mr. INGERSOLL. But he, Mr. C. had risen for the purpose of objecting to the form of the resolution submitted by the gentleman from Obio, [Mr. MEDILL.] That resolution asked that "Mr. INGERSOLL should have leave to address the House, as well as the sitting member." Now he, Mr. C. contended that Mr. NAYLOR, at the sitting member, was a member de facto, and as such he had as much right to address the House, as the gentleman from Ohio himself, or any other member. In this view of the case he considered the adoption of the resolution as implying a doubt on the right of Mr. NAYLER, and admitting that he was not a member de facto. He hoped, therefore, that the gentleman from Ohio would amend his resolution, so as to leave out that portion. Mr. MEDILL did not perceive that the resolution implied a denial of the right of the sitting member. It merely asked that the petitioner might be heard as well as the sitting member. It merely asked that Mr. INGERSOLL might be placed on the same footing as Mr. NAYLOR. He therefore saw no necessity for amending the resolution as required by the gentleman from Massachusetts. He hoped the gentleman would not press it, inasmuch they were losing much time, and Mr. INGERSOLL was present waiting to be heard. Mr. CUSHING said he would press it: for, if the words meant nothing, why not omit them; and if they did mean any thing, their import was a hard one. Mr. LEWIS WILLIAMS complained that the House, by giving the Committee of Elections power to send for persons and papers, had made them the prosecutors, instead of the judges; and he would always contend that the proceedings of the House were improper and irregular. But he wished to know whether Mr. INGERSOLL intended to appear as a claimant to the seat, or as attorney for the people. It was with a view of ascertaining this fact, that he had moved the reconsideration. As, however, many of his friends appeared desirous he should withdraw, he would do so. Mr. W. then withdrew the motion to reconsider. Mr. CUSHING renewed it, as he could not consent to the resolution until the words he objected to were stricken out. Mr. MEDILL said that in order to save time, he would consent to amend the resolution as desired. And there being no objection, the resolution was so modified. After some further debate, in which Messrs. BARNARD, MEDILL, G. DAVIS, and ALFORD, participated, Mr. HUBBARD moved the previous question, but withdrew it at the request of Mr. ALFORD, who, after some remarks in reply to Mr. BARNARD, renewed it. Some debate of a desultory character here arose as to whether Mr. ALFORD, having previously spoken, had a right to the floor to move the previous question. Mr. TURNEY having obtained the floor, after some brief remarks on the propriety of reserving the merits of the case until it should be fairly before the House, moved the previous question. Mr. W. COST JOHNSON called for the reading of the memorial of Mr. INGERSOLL; which was read as follows: To the honorable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled: The memorial and petition of Charles J. Ingersoll respectfully shows: That he was chosen by a majority of the electors of the Third Congressional District of the State of Pennsylvania, their Representative in and for the Twenty-sixth Congress, now in session, and accordingly se returned as elected by the constitutional authorities of the State of Pennsylvania, whose certificates, in legal form, here communicated to the House of Representatives, and are now among its records, certifying that your memorialist and petitioner is so elected. He had believed, therefore, that your honorable House would, before this time, without his application, have instituted the proper means for ascertaining whether he is entitled to the membership, which is claimed also by another per son. But inasmuch as he is given to understand that a direct application, in the form of a petition, from himself, is deemed necessary to bring the subject, without delay, into the consideration of your honorable House, your petitioner respectfully requests that prompt and proper measures may be taken by the House of Representatives, to enable your petitioner to prove his right to membership as Representative of the people of the Third Congressional District of Pennsylvania in the present Congress, and that no other person is elected from that district to this Congress. C. J. INGERSOLL. WASHINGTON, January 23, 1840. The call for the previous question was then seconded, and the main question-being on the reconsideration-ordered to be put. Mr. BARNARD demanded the yeas and nays, which were ordered; and being taken, resulted as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Adams, Andrews, Barnard, Bell, Breckenridge, Brockway, Chittenden, Cranston, Edward Davies, Garrett Davis, Dawson, Doe, Edward, Evans, Everett, Gentry, Giddings, Granger, Green, Grinnell, John Hastings, Henry, Charles Johnston, William Cost Johnson, Kempshall, King, Lane, Marvin, Morgan, Nisbet, Osborne, Peck, Proffit, Randall, Saltonstall, Slade, Stanly, John B. Thompson, John White, T. W. Williams, Lewis Williams, and Christopher H. Williams-42. NAYS-Messrs. Alford, Judson Allen, Anderson, Atherton, Banks, Baker, Beatty, Beirne, Black, Blackwell, Boardman, Bond, Brewster, Briggs, Aaron V. Brown, Albert G. Brown, Burke, Sampson H. Butler, Wm. B. Campbell, Carr, Carroll, Carter, Casey, Chapman, Clifford, Coles, Connor, William R. Cooper, Craig, Crary, Cross, Cushing, Dana, Davee, John Davis, John W. Davis, Deberry, Dickerson, Dellet. Doan, Doig, Earl, Eastman, Ely, Fillmore, Fine, Fisher, Floyd, Fornance, Galbraith, Garland, Goggin, Goode, Graham, Griffin, Habersham, Hand, Hawes, Hill of Virginia, Hill of North Carolina, Hillen, Holmes, Hook, Hopkins, Hubbard, Jackson, James, Joseph Johnson, Cave Johnson, Nathaniel Jones, John W. Jones, Keim, Kille, Leadbetter, Leet, Leonard, Lewis, Lincoln, Lowell, Lucas, McClellan, McCulloch, McKay, Meredith Mallory, Francis Mallory, Marchand, Mason, Medill, Montanya, Moore, Samuel W. Morris, Calvary Morris, Morrow, Newhard, Parrish, Parmenter, Parris, Paynter, Pickens, Pope, Prentiss, Randolph, Rariden, Rayner, Reynolds, Ridgway, Edward Rogers, James Rogers, Ryall, Samuels, Shaw, Shepard, Albert Smith, John Smith, Truman Smith, Steenrod, Strong, Stuart, Sumter, Swearingen, Sweney, Taliaferro, Taylor, Philip F. Thomas, Jacob Thompson, Tillinghast, Toland, Triplett, Turney, Underwood, David D. Wagener, Weller, Wick, J .W. Williams, Henry Williams, Joseph L. Williams, Winthrop, and Worthington -139. So the House refused to reconsider the vote by which the resolution of Mr. MEDILL had been agreed to. The SPEAKER then directed the Sergeant-atArms to apprise Mr. INGERSOLL that he might appear at the bar of the House. Mr. INGERSOLL then presented himself at the bar. Whereupon, The SPEAKER informed him that in pursuance of an order of the House, he (Mr. I.) was permitted to state his reasons for claiming a seat in the House, as a representative from the third Congressional district of Pennsylvania. Mr. INGERSOLL then proceeded to recapitulate the facts on which he based his right to the seat, and entered into a detailed account of the circum. stances attenning the perpetration of the alleged frauds, the bribery of witnesses, etc. Without concluding, Mr. I. gave way for a motion to adjourn; and at a few minutes past three o'clock, The House adjourned. IN SENATE, WEDNESDAY, January 6, 1841. The PRESIDENT submitted a message from the President of the United States, in further reply to the resolution of the Senate of 30th December, 1839; which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. Mr. PIERCE presented the petition of Richard Elliott; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions. Mr. WRIGHT presented the petition of pilots of the port of New York, praying a repeal of the law of 1837; which was referred to the Cemmittee on Commerce. Mr. PHELPS presented resolutions of the Legislature of Vermont, instructing their Senators to endeavor to procure the passage of a law recommending an amendment of the Constitution of the United States, restricting the eligibility of the President to a single term; which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. Mr. LINN presented the petitions of the heirs of Collin Bishop; Joseph Cooper and Gray Bynum, administrators of Sarshal Cooper; Francis Wood; Joshua Freeman; Francis Ray, Antoine Fay, Joseph Reese, and John B. Denayor; Joseph Boggs; Jesse Watkins, James Turner, and Benjamin Caton, of Missouri; David Magill; Joseph Ray; John O'Bannon; Wiliam Munce and Joseph Woolkill; Francis Wood, Joseph Wood, and others; A. Groom; David M. Quilley, administrator of William Head; Robert A. and John G. Heath; Elisha Todd and Francis Cooper; John Turner; citizens of Clay county, Mo.; which were all referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. Mr. BENTON presented the petition of Prentice F. Bonney; which was referred to the Committee on Claims. On motion by Mr. BENTON, the petition and papers of Maj. R. L. Baker, now on file, were referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. On motion by Mr. LINN, the petition and papers of De Mansur, now on file, were referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. On motion by Mr. ANDERSON, the petitions and papers now on file of Andrew Johnson and of Samuel Love, were referred to the Committee on Claims. Mr. BUCHANAN presented eight memorials numerously signed by merchants and citizens of Philadelphia, praying for the abolition of the spirit portion of the navy ration, and the substitution therefor of tea or coffee; which were referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs. Mr. NICHOLAS presented the memorial of the Chamber of Commerce of New Orleans, praying the passage of a general bankrupt law; which was laid on the table and ordered to be printed. Mr. HENDERSON presented the petition of George W. Robinson; which was referred to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads. Mr. SOUTHARD presented the memorial of citizens of New Jersey, praying the passage of a general bankrupt law; which was laid on the table. Mr. STURGEON, in pursuance of previous notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill to make certain appropriations to the Patent Office; which was twice read and referred to the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office. Mr. NICHOLAS, in pursuance of previous notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill to authorize the issue of patents for certain entries of puble lands; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Public Lands. Mr. MOUTON, from the Committee on Private Land Claims, to which was referred the bill for the relief of the heirs of Madame De Lusser and their legal representatives, reported the same with an amendment. Mr. M. also, from the same committee, reported a bill confirming the claim of the heirs of Pierre Dolet, deceased, to a tract of land in Louisiana; which was read, and ordered to a second reading. Mr. BENTON gave notice that when the bill establishing a general bankrupt law was taken up, he would move to amend it by subjecting banks and money corporations to the operation of the bill, and the compulsory provisions of the bill. Mr. WALL, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported a bill for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, and for other purposes; which was read, and ordered to a second reading. The bill for the relief of Mary Prettyman was considered as in committee of the whole, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. The bill for the benefit of the Howard Institution of the city of Washington was taken up as in committee of the whole. Mr. TAPPAN inquired from the chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia whether this was the same bill as passed the Senate the last session. Mr. MERRICK. The same. Mr.TAPPAN would call for the ayes and noes thereon. Several Senators asked for some explanation of the bill. Mr. MERRICK said the memorial to the Senate from respectable inhabitants of the District, set forth the objects of this bill-which were of a purely benevolent character-and therefore he would ask that it might be read. The Secretary having read the memorial, Mr. TAPPAN said he questioned not that the institution which it was proposed to establish in this city, for which aid was sought by this bill, was a very meritorious and a very charitab'e institution; but he had yet to learn that they had any more power, or authority, or right, to grant the public property to maintain a charitable institution in the city of Washington, than they had to support a similar institution in the city of New York, New Orleans, or any other city or town of the United States. Because this was the seat of Government, because Congress sits here, and the public offices were here, were they to put themselves in the place of the inhabitants, and, by their liberality, afford the city the means of performing acts of charity, which in all other places were accomplished by the means and the private charities of the citizens themselves? If the chairman of the Committee on the District would give some further explanation, he (Mr TAPPAN) should be glad to hear it, for at present he had learned nothing that was satisfactory. He was not aware that they were under any obligation to support the poor of this District, more than their general obligation to do good to the poor all over the country. Mr. MERRICK had hoped the memorial itself would have been satisfactory. The gentleman from Ohio admitted that the object of the institution was praiseworthy and commendable, and highly beneficial to the country, but he doubted the right of Congress to give the aid contemplated by the bill, and he argued that Congress had no more right to provide for the poor and the indigent here, than in any other part of the country, Now it seemed to him (Mr. MERRICK) that the Senator from Ohio had not given a correct construction of the powers of Congress. New York had a Government of her own, whose duty it was to take care of the local interests of the people of that State, while the people of the District of Columbia looked to Congress as their exclusive legislators; there was no power except that which resides here, and unless that power was exercised, the people of the District were cut off entirely. The members of Congress were the exclusive rulers of the District, and to Congress must the people of the District look for the exercise of sovereign pow er. Was it right and proper, then, that the people of the District should be completely disfranchised and cut off from all political rights which were enjoyed by the people generally, and that Congress should be less beneficent than the Legislatures of other States? The authority of Congress over this people was special and more comprehensive than over the other people of the States; Congress occupied the place of a local Legislature; and they were not asked to apply the national money to aid the people of the District-they were not asked to take the money of the people of New York, or of Maryland, or of Ohio, but they were asked to give to the people of the District a portion of the property which belonged to them, which Congress ob'ained by grant from the owners of the soil, for the purpose of being applied to the promotion of the welfare of the people of the District. What consideration had the people of the United States ever given for this vast amount of property? This spot was selected as the seat of the Federal Governmentchoice was made of this place because it was convenient, and the proprietors of the soil ceded to Congress the territory, and now all that was asked, was to give them back a small portion for a highly beneficent object, of that which was as much the property of the people of the District as the land within a State was the property of the people of the State. Mr. HUBBARD had been much surprised at the argument of the Senator from Maryland. Did they owe any thing to the District? If they did, he should like to see the amount stated, that he might ascertain the amount of balance due from the Government to the District of Columbia. He knew not what right they had to take the property of the Government and convey it for the benefit of any portion of the people. He had yet to learn that they had the power, or, if they had the power, that there would be a propriety in exercising that power. True they were the exclusive Legislature of the District; but were they then to provide for the support of the poor? Was such power conferred upon them? They had given corporate and municipal powers to the several cities of the District, and beyond that they could not go. With reference to the account between Government and the District, which had been often alluded to, he repeated that he should like to see it stated. The Senator from Maryland was greatly in error if he supposed if the value of the property was taken into account, there would be a balance in favor of the city. What would this property have been worth, if the National Government had not been located here? If this land were taken as now proposed, it would be the taking of the natienal property and giving it to the city, and he (Mr. HUBBARD) denied that they had such power. They might as well take from the national fund and appropriate it to the use of the State of New Hampshire as to take this property for the use of this institution; and with these views he should Vote against the bill. Mr. MERRICK had merely adverted to the manner Congress had acquired the title to the District, to show that there was a peculiar relation existing between Congress and the people of the District. As to the matter of account, of which the Senator from New Hampshire had spoken, he had no intention to enter into a discussion. They were not now asked for any thing from the National Treasury; they were merely asked for that which was placed at their disposal for the benefit of the people. Mr. SEVIER had voted against this bill at the last session, and he should vote against it again; but he wished to ask the chairman of the Committee on the District how many lots Government held in this city, and what was their value. Mr. MERRICK said it was impossible that he could now answer the question so unexpectedly proposed; originally, half the property of the city was ceded to the Governmen', but how much the Government still held he could not tell. of. Mr. SEVIER asked how it had been disposed Mr. MERRICK explained. A good deal of it had been disposed of for colleges and schools, and a good deal for the improvement of the streets and public squares. When a street was paved, the Commissioner of the Public Buildings was bound to pave that part which passed along a public square, and for this purpose a good deal of the public Lots had been disposed of, the city corporation levying a tax to defray the expense of improving the roads in the front of the stores and habitations. Mr. SEVIER said if the Senator from Maryland would introduce a bill to rede all the lots to the corporate authorities, for the purpose of giving o cach citizen a lot for the site of a "leg cabin," he (Mr. SEVIER) would vote for it. Mr. HUBBARD. Each white person. Mr. SEVIER. White or black, or between the colors. If the Senator from Maryland would introduce such a bill, giving the public property in the land in this city to the citizen, and add a prospective pre-emption clause for the benefit of those who were to come hereafter in the vacant lots, he would vote for it, and he believed many of thote with whom he usually acted would vote for it too. Mr. MERRICK hoped the Senator from Arkansas would yet become one of the "log cabin" party. After a few other words from Mr. SEVIER and Mr. MERRICK, Mr. WALKER said he had voted for this bill at the last session with great pleasure, and should do so again now. The bill granted a small vacant lot of the public grounds in Washington to the Howard Institute of this city, an institute established by private funds for the most noble and charitable purposes-the employment of the poor, especially of the female poor, the widow and the orphan, and the alleviation of human misery. This grant was not without precedent. One of the New England States and one of the Western States had received from Congress large grants of the public domain for similar institutions and for pub. lic charity within the limits of those States. These were grants, not of a small lot of ground, as in this |