Mr. GILLET thought that it would possess all the objectionable features of a bank-a monopoly. It was decidedly such an institution as the people of this country have, with a loud voice, condemned; and it was the duty of Congress to carry out the views of the people. Mr. CHINN denied that this institution partook, in any degree, of the character of a bank; and defended the bill. Mr. MANN, of New York, was apprehensive that, if his colleague [Mr. VANDERPOEL] would more closely examine this bill, he would discover that it was essentialJy a savings bank; but he was unwilling to deprive the city of Alexandria of the benefits of our legislation. He hoped his other colleague [Mr. GILLET] would withdraw his opposition, and suffer the bill to pass, after some slight amendment. Mr. VANDERPOEL replied. He said if the motion to strike out the enacting clause should not prevail, it was his intention to offer an amendment to the bill, to meet the scruples of his colleague, [Mr. MANN.] Mr. HUBBARD expressed his utter surprise at the evidence of the slightest opposition to this bill. Such institutions had been of immense benefit to the country, in enabling the poor to lay up their scanty earnings. This he had witnessed in his own neighborhood, and he hoped the motion would not prevail. Mr. FELDER referred to instances in which the managers of such establishments had been guilty of the grossest abuses. He expressed himself opposed to the whole class of these institutions. They were too often bottomed in fraud and swindling. Mr. FILLMORE proposed an amendment to the third section, providing that no notes should be made payable to the directors. He then proceeded to defend the nature of the proposed incorporation. He deemed it emphatically the poor man's bank, in opposition to the rich man's monopoly. Mr. POLK spoke against the passage of the bill. He saw nothing in its nature to prevent the investment of the funds of capitalists for purposes of speculation. Neither did he see any injury that could result to the community by its postponement to another session. Mr. PARKER went into an examination of those institutions. He was opposed to the bill, and thought the amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. FILLMORE] Would not remedy it. The amendment of Mr. FILLMORE was then agreed to; and Mr. F. then submitted another, relating to the amount of loans and deposites to be made by the compa. ny to and by a single individual, limiting the same to $500. Mr. HARPER spoke in general terms in favor of savings institutions; but he believed the amendments proposed were not entirely sufficient to secure this one from abuse. Mr. MANN, of New York, said a few words in explanation of the features of the bill. Mr. GILLET again addressed the House in opposition to the bill, and in favor of his motion to strike out the enacting clause. Mr. FILLMORE then withdrew his amendment, in order to avoid further discussion. Mr. PLUMMER said he could not permit the occasion to pass without expressing his decided disapprobation of adding another to the list of banks in this District. He was opposed to corporations of all kinds conferring on a company of men exclusive powers and privileges which were not and could not be enjoyed by the great mass of the people. It was incompatible with that equality of rights intended to be secured by our Government to its individual members. This act of incorporation is said to be for the benefit of the poor man, of the laborer, of the mechanic-a savings institution for the accommodation of the widow and the orphan. Who are these poor men, and who are they that desire this [H. OF R. act of incorporation for the safe keeping of their earnings? Are there any petitions on our table from the mechanics and laborers of Alexandria, asking for this charter? Do they acknowledge themselves incapable of managing their own private concerns? Do they desire us to appoint for them guardians over their pecuniary affairs, vested with extraordinary powers and privileges, by which they can control the whole labor and industry of the country? If so, it is evidence conclusive that they do not understand their own interests, or that they need a guardian in fact. It is called in the bill a savings institution, innocent in itself, say gentlemen, and can do no harm. That is but another name for a bank. It is in fact bank. It is even worse than a bank, because it carries deception on its face. It is an enemy to the laboring portion of the community in disguise. It is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is a snake in the grass. He could compare the difference between that bill and a bank charter to nothing more appropriate than the difference between a snake in the grass and an open, bold, and avowed enemy. The gentleman from Baltimore thinks there is no danger in it, if conducted by honest men. He (Mr. P.) knew nothing of the standing or character of the individuals named in the bill, nor did he care whether they were honest or dishonest; that would not change the principle. If honest, it was no reason why they should have conferred on them powers and privileges not granted to the rest of the community equally honest. If dishonest, this act would legalize their conduct. It would authorize them to swindle according to law. The very act itself would be to all the world, to the unsuspecting and confiding laborer, a certificate of honesty and good character. Were the members of the committee prepared to certify to their good character, and in consideration thereof pass a law enabling them to collect the hard earnings of the working men, all of their spare cash, into one large mass, and grow fat on the proceeds, without labor? Such would be the result. Because the individuals named in the bill, and those who might become members of the corporation, were honest, that was no reason why the industry of the country should be under their control, which was the inevitable result of all banks. He thanked the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. THOMAS] for a suggestion in relation to the manner in which a similar institution was once got up that came under his observaOut of the whole number of president, directors, and company, there was not a solvent man among them. Their sole object was to get the money of the neighborhood under their control, and thereby provide some of themselves with a living without labor, as presidents, cashiers, and clerks, and enable others to live by speculating on the accommodations granted to themselves. Such disinterested patriotism and devotion to the interests of the poor, as gentlemen pretended actuated those who had applied for this charter, he had no confidence in. Instead of taking care of the hard earnings of the poor man, their object was to live on the industry of the country without labor, and make those who earn their bread by the sweat of their brow labor for them. That was the true character of the bill. Instead of a saving machine, it would, in all probability, turn out to be a swindling machine, as a similar institution in Baltimore did last winter, adverted to by the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. FELDER.] When that institution blew up, nearly the whole of the funds were in the hands of a few of the directors, who purchased the certificates of deposite from the widow and the orphan, and those poor men for whose benefit the charter was granted, at forty or fifty per cent. below par, and paid them with the very money which they had induced them to place under their charge for safe keeping, and discharged their own debts to the institution with their certificates tion. H. OF R.] Reaolutionary Bounty Lands-Relations with France. at par. Instead of a benefit, it would operate as a tax on the people of Alexandria. Such was the natural consequence of all such licensed monopolies. There is no limit as to the amount of capital, and the fact urged by those who support the bill, that the corporation have no express power to issue notes and bills, does not do away the main objections. The authority given to regulate the issuing certificates of deposite and the mode of transferring them, confers on the corporation indirectly all of the powers which are conferred by bank charters directly. He would not permit himself to be drawn into a discussion of the details of the bill at that late hour. It would not bear investigation. The more it was examined the worse it would appear. It was sufficient for him that it conferred on a body of men exclusive privileges; that it was such a legalized monopoly as he was opposed to in principle. He thought that the surplus money of the mechanics and laborers of Alexandria had better remain in their pockets, or be loaned to responsible private individuals, whose whole property was liable for the payment of the principal and interest, and not to an irresponsible corporation. If they place their money in an institution such as is proposed by this bill, a portion of it must necessarily stick to the hands of the officers and directors as it passes through the machine. They would never get it all back again. The institution would have to be sustained, and the officers supported, at their expense. He repeated that it was a bank in disguise, and of the most odious character, as would be discovered on examination, and calculated to deceive the people. He should vote for the motion of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. GILLET,] to strike out the enacting clause, and hoped that it would prevail. Mr. CHINN owed it to the applicants to defend their reputation. They were unimpeachable, and he believed their intention to be unexceptionable. Mr. HARPER expressed his conviction that the bill contained many defects. The motion to strike out the enacting clause was agreed to. The bill making appropriations for the support of the penitentiary for the year 1835 was then considered and laid aside. REVOLUTIONARY BOUNTY LANDS. The bill granting an additional quantity of land for the satisfaction of revolutionary bounty land warrants was taken up. Mr. PARKER opposed the bill, and expressed a wish to express his sentiments at large on the subject. But, owing to the lateness of the hour, he moved that the committee rise and report progress on all the bills acted upon. Mr. J. Y. MASON said, if the motion prevailed, the bill would be defeated, and he was perfectly willing to meet the gentleman's argument now. He hoped the committee would not rise. Mr. POLK stated that there were now four or five hundred thousand acres of land needed to satisfy existing bounty land warrants. After some remarks from Messrs. J. Y. MASON, VINTON, HUBBARD, CLAY, EVANS, and MERCER, principally upon the order of proceeding, Mr. PARKER withdrew the motion, and proceeded to speak in opposition to the bill. The committee then rose, and reported the above bills, with the exception of the last bill, and they were ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. The House then adjourned. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 27. RELATIONS WITH FRANCE. Mr. CAMBRELENG, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, made the following report; which was read: [FEB. 27, 1835. "The Committee on Foreign Affairs, to which was referred so much of the President's message as concerns our political relations with France, and the correspondence between the ministers of the two Governments, submits the following report: "At an early period of the session the committee took into consideration the question of authorizing reprisals, and continued from time to time to discuss various motions and resolutions, submitted by its different members. They could, however, concur in no proposition; and, in that condition, a majority deemed it expedient to postpone their decision till further intelligence should be received from France. The committee had, within the week past, twice instructed its chairman to report resolutions, but the arrival of additional intelligence caused a suspension of these reports until an official communication should be received from the Executive. That communication places the relations between the two countries in a novel and interesting position. While there is satisfactory evidence that the French Government earnestly desires that the appropriation for indemnity should be made in pursuance of the stipulations of the treaty, and while there is reason to hope that the Chamber of Deputies will adopt that measure, and faithfully discharge the obligations of France to the United States, it is, on the other hand, to be feared that the conduct of that Government has placed us in a position at least embarrassing, even should it not produce an entire suspension of diplomatic intercourse between the two nations. In this new position of our relations, it is deemed expedient to dispense with further discussion on the subject of non-intercourse with and reprisals on the commerce of France, to which the attention of the committee had been directed, and to leave the question of our political relations with that Government to the next Congress, whose action will no doubt be governed by the course which France may deem it expedient to pursue. We are not yet informed what may have been the decision of the King of the French as to the dismissal of our minister, nor can we conjecture what may be the fate of the appropriation in the Chamber of Deputies. "While the committee is unwilling to anticipate any but an amicable and favorable result in both cases, it must be recollected that the King and Chamber may decide adversely to the interests and harmony of the two nations. Such a decision on the part of France, however it may be regretted by the people of both countries, who have great and growing interests, commercial and political, to cherish, may lead to a result upon which the committee, while in doubt, and while a hope remains, will not enlarge. "The committee is therefore of opinion that, at such a crisis, when events may occur which cannot be anticipated, and which may lead to important consequences in our external relations, it would not discharge its duty to the country if it did not express a firm resolution to insist on the full execution of the treaty of 1831, and if it did not recommend to the House a contingent preparation for any emergency which may grow out of our relations with France previous to the next meeting of Congress. It is a gratifying circumstance that our means are adequate to meet any exigency without recourse to loans or taxes. The bill now before the House authorizing the sale of our stock in the Bank of the United States would, if adopted, afford all the revenue necessary. The committee is of opinion that the whole, or a part, of the fund to be derived from that source should be appropriated for the purpose of arming our fortifications, and for making other military and naval preparations for the defence of the country, in case such expenditures should become necessary before the next meeting of Congress. "The committee therefore submits the following resolutions for the consideration of the House: "Resolved, That it would be incompatible with the rights and honor of the United States further to negotiate in relation to the treaty entered into by France, on the 4th of July, 1831, and that this House will insist upon its execution, as ratified by both Governments. "Resolved, That the Committee on Foreign Affairs be discharged from the further consideration of so much of the President's message as relates to commercial restrictions, or to reprisals, on the commerce of France. "Resolved, That contingent preparation ought to be made to meet any emergency growing out of our relations with France." Mr. EDWARD EVERETT asked permission of the House to submit the views of the minority of the committee in a report. As it was somewhat long, he would not call for its reading at this time. The minority did not, he said, essentially differ in their views of the subject from the majority; but on one or two points they did not fully concur with the majority, and they had thought it proper to take a more full and historical view of the subject than had been taken by the majority. Mr. CAMBRELENG explained that when he remarked yesterday that he had never heard of a report on the part of the minority of the committee, he had not the least idea that the paper now presented was the one referred to. Before the late intelligence was received it was proposed in the committee to move the printing of this document, but it was deferred at the time, and he thought the proposition had been dismissed. He added that the report had not been read by one of the six members who formed a majority of the committee. Mr. J. Q. ADAMS asked whether the report of the minority concluded with any resolutions. Mr. E. EVERETT replied that it did not. Mr. J. Q. ADAMS said he would now propose the resolutions which he sent to the Chair yesterday. The resolutions having been read, as printed in yesterday's debates, Mr. ADAMS requested the Clerk to make a verbal alteration in them, so as to change the word "measures" to "measure," as he said it was written. In order to be understood by the House and the nation, he thought proper, he said, to explain the manner in which the variations in the different copies of the resolutions, as printed in the newspapers this morning, occurred. His manuscript copy of the resolutions, as they were sent to the Chair, was taken for publication by the editors of the National Intelligencer. He was afterwards applied to for a copy by one of the reporters for the Globe, who expressed a strong desire to have it for publication. He therefore wrote a copy from memory, intending it to be verbatim and literatim the same. Some few verbal variations had occurred, but none which affected the sense. He moved the resolutions as an amendment to those reported from the committee. Mr. ARCHER moved that the report and resolutions be referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and be made the order of the day for this day. Mr. STEWART moved to add, "and printed." Mr. PHILLIPS hoped the minority report would also be printed. Mr. ARCHER modified his motion so as to embrace both reports. Finding, he said, that many around him preferred that to-morrow should be assigned for the consideration of the subject, he varied his motion so as to make the subject the order for that day. The SPEAKER said it would make no difference which day was assigned, as the subject would take its regular station in the calendar, and could not be reached but by postponing all the orders preceding it. [H. OF R Mr. SUTHERLAND suggested that this was the last day on which bills could be sent to the other House, without a vote of two thirds of both Houses. Mr. CAMBRELENG suggested to the gentleman from Virginia, who, he was sure, he said, was as anxious as himself to have this subject acted on, the expediency of withdrawing his motion to commit to the Committee of the Whole, for the reason that, as this was the last day on which a bill could be sent to the other House, the bill referred to in the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations must pass to-day. Mr. ARCHER said he was unwilling to discuss any where else than in the Committee of the Whole a subject of so great magnitude. The House might decide to go instanter into Committee of the Whole, and take up the subject. He could not consent to withdraw his proposition. Mr. BURGES hoped, he said, that a question so deeply interesting to the whole country would be discussed in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. If the resolutions of the committee passed, the bill referred to could then be taken up. Mr. POLK rose to correct an error into which the gentleman from New York had fallen, in regard to the position of the bill for the sale of the stock of the Government in the United States Bank. The bill was not in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union; it was in the House; and all the orders of the day had been postponed for the purpose of taking it up. But, since that time, other measures had taken precedence of it. He understood that the state of the business was this: the bills on their engrossment first came up, and next the bills in reference to the United States Bank. The third resolution of the committee should be acted on forthwith, to the end that the bill to sell the stock should be acted on to-day. He suggested the propriety of acting on the resolution forthwith. To commit the subject was to bury it. As Mr. J. Q. ADAMS said it appeared to him that the course recommended by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. ARCHER] was the only constitutional course. the avowed object of the resolution was to make an appropriation of money, it ought to be considered in Committee of the Whole. The resolution proposed to spend the money of the nation; but its reference to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union was objected to, because, if it went there, the House could not be bound to pass it by the previous question. It was, in effect, a proposition to tax the people-to take seven millions of their money and appropriate it to certain purposes. The bill must be referred to the Committee of the Whole, if the resolution was passed. He now discovered that war with France was to be connected with the war with the bank. The two wars were to be united, each supporting the other. To prove that the subject should be committed to the Committee of the Whole, he read the following passages from the rules of the House: "81. No sum or quantum of tax or duty, voted by a Committee of the Whole House, shall be increased in the House until the motion or proposition for such increase shall be first discussed and voted in a Committee of the Whole House; and so in respect to the time of its continuance. 82. All proceedings touching appropriations of money shall be first discussed in a Committee of the Whole House." Is this proceeding, asked Mr. A., one touching the appropriation of money or not? It was certainly a proceeding by which seven millions of the public money was to be taken and expended in a wind-mill war against France; in favor of which, he thanked God, there had yet been no expression of opinion on the part of this H. OF R.] Relations with France. [FEB. 27, 1835. gentleman was undoubtedly aware that such was not the fact. He had not the slightest desire to make this a party question, and he assured the House that any modification of either of the resolutions which would secure the unanimous vote of the House, would be assented to by him with pleasure. With regard to the expediency of making an appropriation to meet any emergency which might arise in the recess of Congress, there was, he believed, but one sentiment among the people of all parties. He saw this opinion expressed in almost every paper, of whatever politics, which came from the North. The gentleman, he was persuaded, was mistaken in his declaration that this was a party question. House. There were two things which were forced upon his attention in connexion with this subject. In the first place, it was evident that the question was to be managed on party grounds. The supporters of the administration were alone to be heard on the subject; and what they proposed was to be carried. The minority was to have no right to say any thing but "yea" or "nay" to the propositions of the leaders of the majority. In the next place, it was now, for the first time, disclosed that these two wars were to be blended together-the war with France and the war with the bank; one was to carry on the other, if either was too heavy to sustain itself. The proposition of the committee was the reverse of the principle assumed by the Senate, (he hoped it was not out of order to refer to the Senate,) which was the only principle on which we could go to war with France with honor and advantage; and this proposition, he reminded the House, was the result of an act of a minority of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, which the House did not reprobate, as it ought, in his opinion, to have done-the act of displacing the regular chairman of the committee, and substituting another, who was chosen, to say the least of it, by his own vote. [The SPEAKER called the gentleman to order.] I say this, continued Mr. A., merely in illustration of the principle which has been assumed, and which, he thought, was extremely pernicious. It approached in regular order, according to the rules of the peared to him that, according to imperative rules of the House, these resolutions could not be acted on by the House without a previous reference of them to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. In the Committee of the Whole the freedom of speech was practically secured. But what would be the course in the House? When the friends of the administration and the acting chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations thought the discussion had gone far enough, they would resort to the previous question. Next we were to be told that we must pass the bill to sell the stock immediately, or not at all. The bugle horn of the party will be sounded, and its friends will be told that they must pass the bill in order to support the administration. When all the liegemen of the administration have answered to their names, as they ought, according to the politics and morals of the party, the question will be put, and the bill passed. The war cry against the bank will be raised; and it will be proclaimed that what the people have in the bank amounts to nothing at all, and that they want to get rid of it. He concluded by repeating that the rules of the House rendered it necessary to commit the subject to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. Mr. COULTER said the debate appeared likely to wander into a channel unpropitious to a calm decision of the question. He hoped the House would appreciate the delicacy of the situation in which it was now placed as the popular branch of the Legislature, and consider that the measures which they adopted might prejudice the interests and welfare of fourteen millions of souls. The House was unfortunately so situated that every step they took must have an important bearing on the relations of the two countries. He therefore hoped that the subject would be ap House, and in the most calm and dispassionate manner. If (said Mr. C.) we do not allow our passions to interfere with our measures, there will be no danger of an unfortunate result, and he therefore hoped the House would take the usual course. The time allowed before the expiration of the session was too short to act on the subject with due deliberation, and he thought it would be better to leave every thing in relation to the subject to the people, or to the next Congress, which might be summoned, if necessary. At all events, this question, above all others, ought to be discussed in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union more than any other subject ever presented to the House; it demanded the exercise of the functions of that committee. If it was in order, he would give notice that he would to-morrow move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union on this subject. Perhaps, he said, by general consent, it might be agreed to assign to-morrow for the consideration of the subject. Mr. MERCER expressed his approbation of the temper displayed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and the hope that the House would imitate his example. men to suffer the subject, according to the usual mode of proceeding, to go to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and not to place it in a condition unfavorable to a deliberate and sober discussion. Mr. BURGES rose, he said, to implore every one to Mr. CAMBRELENG said: I trust, sir, that you and lay aside every feeling and prejudice which might obthe House will pardon me if I do not respond to the scure the mental vision in the consideration of this mogentleman from Massachusetts in the same temper or mentous question. Let every one, he said, forget every tone which he has himself used. He had too much re-thing but that they are Americans. He begged gentlespect, he said, for that gentleman and for himself to retort any of his imputations. He regretted that, on a subject on which unanimity was so desirable, there should have occurred any thing to awaken any personal feelings. It was a question on which the House ought to rise, above party considerations, to the high dignity of its legislative character; and he regretted that the gentleman from Massachusetts had so suddenly descended from the lofty elevation which at one time he had taken on this subject. He disclaimed all idea of connecting the bank with a war against France. The war with the bank was over. As to the manner of his appointment to the head of the committee, the gentleman had stated what was not authorized by the fact. The gentleman did not mean, perhaps, to be understood, in declaring that he was placed in the chair of the committee by his own vote, as stating that he (Mr. C.) voted for himself-but his language would certainly bear that construction; and the Mr. BRIGGS moved the suspension of the rule, in order to assign to-morrow for the consideration of the subject. Mr. BEARDSLEY wished, he said, to call the attention of the House to the effect of going into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. The CHAIR said no discussion was in order. Mr. PINCKNEY asked if it was in order to move to lay the whole subject on the table. The CHAIR said there was a motion to suspend the rule pending. Mr. ARCHER gave notice, that he, to-morrow at 12 o'clock, would move to suspend the rule, in order to go into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. The object would be attained, if the subject was referred to that committee, by the notice he had given. After some remarks from Mr. MARSHALL and the CHAIR, on the mode of proceeding, Mr. BURGES obtained leave to move that the House meet to-morrow at 10 o'clock. Mr. EVANS moved an amendment, providing that the House, for the remainder of the session, meet at 10 o'clock; in which form the motion was agreed to. The motion of Mr. BRIGGS to suspend the rule was then agreed to. Mr. COULTER now moved that the House go into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, tomorrow at 11 o'clock, to take up and consider the reports and resolutions of the Committee on Foreign Relations, and that they be printed. Mr. MCKENNAN moved to amend the motion by substituting 1 o'clock to-day. He said there were many subjects before the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union which were as important as this to his constituents and to the Union. Mr. J. Q. ADAMS desired leave to make some explanations in reply to the gentleman from New York, [Mr. CAMBRELENG,] but it was objected to. [H. OF R. tleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEWART] opposing with so much ardor the proposal to go into Committee of the Whole House, on a subject of such grave national importance, and to retain the discussion in the House, where the previous question might, at any moment, be sprung, and the debate arrested, he seemed to see an image of the Cumberland road dancing before the gentleman's imagination, and haunting him with fears for the fate of some grand scheme respecting that work. How well founded were the apprehensions which seemed equally to trouble the minds of other gentlemen, that the subject would be detained in Committee of the Whole until it was too late for any action by the House? Where was a case to be found that would justify such an apprehension? Was there an instance on record where great national measures had been smothered by being referred to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union? There was none. He felt assured there was enough of good sense and of patriotic feeling among the members of this House to judge when discussion ought to cease, and when decisive action ought to be resorted to. Ought not a subject to be referred to a Committee of the Whole House, which deeply affected the foreign relations of the country, and indirectly involved the appropriation of vast sums of money-a question which touched the revenue? Could the House determine otherwise, he should indeed be amazed. There was not the least danger that this ever might become of others, which, unless this debate should speedily be brought to a close, must, in all probability, be lost for this session, if not for ever. Mr. BEARDSLEY said the proposition was to refer the subject to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, to be taken up to-morrow at 11 o'clock. He was in favor of the time fixed for the consideration of the subject, but he hoped the gentleman from Pennsyl-subject would receive the action of the House, whatvania would not insist upon designating the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union as the place for considering it. He had no objection to as full and as ample a debate as the time would admit. But if we meant to have a vote on the subject, it ought to be kept in such a shape that the House could control it. Many gentlemen were ready and prepared to speak on the subject, and would occupy all the time till the morning of adjournment. He would not go so far as the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ADAMS] formerly did, and say, when the Executive recommends, I will not deliberate, but act; but after some days of deliberation he hoped the House would be ready to act. To refer the subject to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union would put it beyond the power of the House ultimately to decide the question. He moved to strike out so much of the motion as proposed to commit the subject to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. Mr. MERCER said it would be at any time in the power of the committee to rise and report the subject to the House. He regretted that the force of the considerations uged in favor of considering the subject in the Committee of the Whole was not felt. To Mr. STEWART hoped, he said, that the motion Mr. GRENNELL replied. When he heard the gen- Mr. WILDE demanded the yeas and nays on Mr. BEARDSLEY'S amendment to strike out the reference to a Committee of the Whole, and they were ordered by the House. The question being put, the vote was reported: Yeas 112, nays 110, So it appeared that the amendment was agreed to. The resolution, as amended, was then agreed to. But Mr. MINER, of Connecticut, stated that there had been an error in recording his vote; he had voted in the negative on the amendment, and his name had been recorded as in the affirmative. Mr. BRIGGS thereupon moved that the record be corrected. Mr. ANTHONY said that the names had been called over, and if any mistake had occurred it should have been corrected immediately; a vote had been taken since, and it was now too late. Mr. MINER again declared that he had voted in the negative. Mr. GAMBLE, of Georgia, said that examples were on record where the journal had been corrected in such a case, even on the day following. Mr. WISE protested against any question's being put. He insisted on the right of the member to have his vote correctly recorded, whether the House gave leave or refused it; otherwise, a man would virtually be compelled to vote contrary to his own will. Mr. BARRINGER remostrated with warmth against having any question made in the case. What would be the condition of the House, could such a precedent be established? It would put the vote of every member of the House at the mercy of the Clerk, or of a majority. He had not the least idea of any improper conduct by the Clerk in this case, and hoped that officer would not so understand him; but he protested against the precedent. It was the right of every member to have his vote recorded as he had given it; and it was the duty of the Speaker to see that the journal was cor rectly kept. He protested against any question's being put to the House. |