H. OF R.]

Writs of Error to the Supreme Court.

The journal was corrected by universal assent, without any formal vote; when the votes being summed up more deliberately, the result appeared to be: Yeas 110, nays 111.

So the amendment of Mr. BEARDSLEY was agreed to.

not

And it was agreed that the vote which had followed the erroneous proclamation of the former decision, (viz: that agreeing to Mr. COULTER's motion as supposed to have been amended,) should be considered as a nullity, having been founded in a mistake.

The question, therefore, now recurred on agreeing to the resolution of Mr. COULTER, to commit.

Mr. LYTLE moved to reconsider the vote rejecting Mr. BEARDSLEY'S amendment.

On this motion Mr. BEARDSLEY demanded the yeas and nays; which were ordered.

Mr. EVANS, after some remarks on the tenacity of gentlemen in refusing a Committee of the Whole on so important a measure, moved to lay Mr. LYTLE's motion upon the table.

Mr. MERCER inquired whether that would not, if adopted, dispose of the whole subject.

The CHAIR deciding in the affirmative,
Mr. EVANS withdrew his motion.

[FEB. 27, 1835.

Mr. REED said that those were bills of far less consequence than the subjects now pending.

Mr. BEARDSLEY moved a call of the House; but it was refused.

The question being then put on Mr. COULTER's resolution, to commit the message, papers, and resolution, to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and considering it at eleven o'clock to-morrow, it was carried: Yeas 116, nays 107.

So the resolution was agreed to.

WRITS OF ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT.
The bill authorizing a writ of error to the Supreme
Court in cases of patent rights having been read,

Mr. BATES opposed the bill with earnestness, and referred to a combination of papermakers against an individual, who had made a valuable improvement in the manufacture of paper.

Mr. BRIGGS spoke in reply, and defended the bill, and contended against the patentee referred to by Mr. BATES, insisting that he had no just right to his patent; and yet would recover from five hundred thousand to a million of dollars from the papermakers, and yet they had no right of appeal to the Supreme Court. This bill went to secure them the right.

The question of reconsideration was thereupon put, and decided, by yeas and nays, in the negative: Yeasly 111, nays 113.

So the House refused to reconsider.

Mr. CLAY inquired whether, should the resolution of Mr. COULTER be laid upon the table, the reports of the majority and minority of the Committee on Foreign Affairs would not come up to-morrow morning, as the unfinished business, and take precedence of all other business unfinished.

The CHAIR replied in the affirmative.

Mr. CLAY, after some remarks in opposition to a commitment of the subject to the Committee of the Whole, and the necessity of retaining it within the power of the House, moved to lay Mr. COULTER'S resolution on the table, and demanded the yeas and nays; which were ordered.

Mr. E. EVERETT inquired whether this would not dispose of the whole subject.

The CHAIR replied that it would prevent any resolution of a similar kind from being made.

After some conversation on the point of order, Mr. CLAY withdrew his motion; and, after a few other remarks against the commitment, resumed his seat. Mr. REED said he would hazard the assertion that no subject of so grave importance as that now presented to the House had ever taken any other course than a reference to a Committee of the Whole House. Why should this? Because some gentlemen were in a great hurry for the passage of bills of far less moment. They feared that, if the subject once got into Committee of the Whole, it would be too much discussed. But was there no danger, on the other side, that if it did not go to committee it would not be enough discussed? He hoped a subject of such vast importance would be maturely considered and thoroughly investigated. No gentleman, he trusted, had a wish to prevent action of the House, even if it were in his power; but it would not be. The committee could at any time be discharged, and the House take the subject into its own hands.

Mr. SPEIGHT reminded Mr. REED of the cases of the force bill and the bill to recharter the Bank of the United States, neither of which was allowed to go to a Committee of the Whole. Mr. S. felt very indifferent, however, whether the subject was committed or not; he had no idea that any thing would be done at this session which would affect the national character either one way or the other.

Mr. THOMAS, of Maryland, said he was unexpectedcalled on to consider this bill, but he esteemed the principle involved in it too important to avoid its discussion, solely because of want of preparation.

The bill proposed to grant an appeal to an individual who felt aggrieved by the decision of one of the circuit courts on a contested patent right. If it was passed, this House would have disregarded the provisions of the judiciary law of 1789, without good cause. In the law of 1789, an attempt had been made to fix a boundary between the jurisdictions of the several courts established by the United States. In some cases, the decision of the circuit courts was final; in others, an appeal was granted to the Supreme Court. In all cases when the constitutionality of a law was questioned, the Supreme Court had jurisdiction by appeal; because he supposed the framers of our judiciary system thought questions of that character were of sufficient dignity to need all the knowledge and wisdom of the seven judges on the Supreme Court bench to revise and decide them finally. When the two branches of the national Legislature, with the sanction of the executive department, had passed a law, there appeared to be no propriety in permitting any court, inferior either in numbers or attainment to those who presided in the Supreme Court, to adjudge it to be null and void. In other cases, by the sum in controversy, suitors were empowered to ascertain when and where the right of appeal was withheld or granted. If the amount in controversy in any case pending upon the circuit court exceeded $2,000, then either of the parties had a right to appeal to the highest judicial tribunal. This bill attempted to suspend the law of 1789, by which the boundaries of the jurisdiction of these several courts were thus established. The constitutionality of the patent of law in this case has not been controverted, neither is it pretended that the amount in controversy exceeds $2,000. Why then should Congress interfere? The House cannot fail to see that this bill must be a precursor of numerous bills of the same character. If we refuse to permit the decision of our circuit court to be final in the construction of the patent law, then we must relieve against the decision of the same tribunals, where the true construction of the tariff laws was the matter in issue. In fact, the Committee on the Judiciary had before them a petition front Mr. Sarchet, of Philadelphia, a person well known for his efficient, persevering opposition to the tariff of 1828, asking from Congress a special law to enable him

alter such regulations. Congress shall have the power of altering the times of holding the elections; but they shall be held on the same days throughout the United States, and of altering the time hereinafterwards prescribed for the assembling of Congress every fourth year. The Congress of the United States shall be in session on the second Monday in October, in the year 1836, and on the same day in every fourth year thereafter; and the President of the Senate, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, shall, as soon as convenient and practicable, proceed to open all the certificates and returns, and the electoral votes of the States shall be thereupon counted. The person having the greatest number of votes for President shall be President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of votes given. But if no person shall have such majority, or if the person having the majority of the whole number of votes given shall have died before the counting of the votes, then a second election shall be held on the first Monday and succeeding Tuesday and Wednesday, in the month of December then next ensuing, which shall be confined to the persons having the two highest number of votes at the preceding election. But if two or more persons have the highest and an equal number of votes, then the person having the highest number of votes: Provided, however, if, in the first election, there were but two persons voted for, and the person receiving the highest number of votes shall have died before the counting of the votes, then, in the second election, the choice shall not be confined to the person previously voted for, but any person may be voted for who may be otherwise qualified by the constitution to be President of the United States; which second election shall be conducted, the returns made, the votes counted, and the result of the election in each State certified by the Governor, in the same manner as in its first: and the final result of the election shall be ascertained in the same man. ner as the first, and at such time as shall be fixed by law or resolution of Congress; and the person having the greatest number of votes for President shall be President; but if two or more persons shall have received an equal and the highest number of votes at the second election, or if the person who shall have received the majority of the whole number of votes given at the second election shall have died before the counting of the votes, then the House of Representatives shall choose one of the remaining number of the persons voted for, for President, in the manner now prescribed by the constitution. But if there shall have been but two persons voted for in the second election, and the person who shall have received the highest number of votes shall have died before the counting of the votes, the Vice President then in office shall be President for the next succeeding term. The person having the greatest number of votes for Vice President, at the first election, shall be Vice President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of votes given: and if no person shall have received such majority, or if the person who shall have received the majority of the whole number of votes given shall have died before the counting of the votes, then, of the persons having the two highest num ber of votes, the Senate shall choose one for Vice President; but if two or more persons have the highest and an equal number of votes, then the Senate shall choose a Vice President from the persons having the highest number of votes; but if there shall have been but two persons voted for, and the person who shall have received the highest number of votes shall have died before the counting of the votes, then the remaining person shall be Vice President; or if all the persons voted for shall have died before the counting of the votes, then the Senate shall choose one of their own body for Vice President.

[FEB. 27, 1835.

4th. No Senator or Representative shall be appointed to any civil office, place, or emolument, under the authority of the United States during the time for which he was elected, and for six months afterwards.

Mr. H. EVERETT said he should vote in favor of the first and third, but against the second of the resolutions. He was in favor of giving the election of President to the people, but not by joint ballot; if it were amended so as to allow of voting by districts, he should be in favor of the resolutions. The amendments proposed in the first and third resolutions had been recommended by the present Executive in 1829, and in every annual message since, until the present year. The questions were not new either to the Legislature or to the people. He did not doubt the mind of every gentleman was made up respecting them; and as he felt confident of having the unanimous vote of the friends of the administration, there could be no impropriety in moving the previous question, which he did, upon the whole of the resolutions, and asked that the question might be taken separately on each.

The motion for the previous question was now seconded: Ayes 56, noes not counted.

The question recurring on the first resolution in order,

Mr. VANDERPOEL moved an adjournment, and called for the yeas and nays; which were taken and resulted as follows: Yeas 59, nays 112. So the House refused to adjourn.

The question again recurring on the first resolution, Mr. PLUMMER, of Mississippi, said that, in order rightly to understand a subject touching organic law, it was sometimes necessary to go back to first principles. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, [Mr. PEYTON here called to order.] and God made man in his own image

Mr. PEYTON, Mr. EVANS, and Mr. WISE, here called Mr. PLUMMER to order.

The SPEAKER said he had been waiting to see how the gentleman was about to connect what he had said with the subject before the House. Irrelevant remarks were certainly out of order.

[The noise in the House was very great; and a general sensation pervaded the House.]

Mr. PLUMMER resumed. He regretted that his remarks should have occasioned any excitement in the House. He had not often troubled the House; having risen but once or twice this session, and then the House had refused to grant him any special favor. On one occasion, however, the House had almost unanimously voted that they preferred hearing him speak to granting the motion he had submitted.

The confu

Here the calls to order were renewed. sion increased. The CHAIR said the gentleman must confine himself to the subject before the House.

Mr. PLUMMER resumed. The subject before the House was a proposition to change an organic law of the land; to alter that sacred instrument which had been handed down to us by our patriotic fathers; and for which they had pledged their lives, their fortunes, aud their sacred honor. If this was too sacred a subject on which to make a scriptural quotation, he should like to know on what subject it would be proper to quote that sacred book. As he remarked when he commenced, it was proper in discussing subjects of this nature to refer to first principles. "So God created man in his own image; in the image of God created he him." [Cries of "Order! Order," were now renewed from various quarters.]

Mr. WISE said he had called the gentleman to order, and he would explain why. There were different ways of defeating measures. [Cries of order!] and there was no man who could not do something to defeat them.

[Here Mr. WISE was called to order by various voices.]

The CHAIR said the gentleman from Virginia must state his point of order.

Mr. WISE said that he was just about to state it; and he should state it in his own way. [Cries of order.] One way to defeat a measure to which a member was opposed was to speak it to death. [Here Mr. WISE was loudly called to order, and much confusion prevailed in the hall.] He said he was stating his point of order, and should not be called down. What he wanted to ask of the Chair was, whether a measure might thus be attempted to be defeated by actual profanity.

Mr. EVANS said he also had called the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. PLUMMER] to order, but on a different ground from that just stated. He considered the remarks of the gentleman as wholly irrelevant and impertinent to the subject before the House, and such as ought not to be allowed. He hoped the House would determine the question of order.

The CHAIR said that the course of remark in which the gentleman had indulged seemed to be out of order; but the Chair had been waiting to see in what way he intended to connect them with the subject under discussion. So far as they were irrelevant to that subject, they were certaintly not in order.

Mr. PLUMMER inquired whether he might be permitted to explain.

[Cries of no! no! order! take your seat! order!]

Mr. ARCHER said that the rules of the House directed that, when a member was called to order by the Chair, he must take his seat, and could not proceed without the permission of the House.

Mr. PLUMMER asked if he could explain. [Order! no! no! sit down!]

Mr. ARCHER asked that the question might be put, and the sense of the House taken on allowing the gentleman to proceed.

Mr. PLUMMER inquired whether he might not be allowed to explain.

[Great noise and confusion.]

Mr. LOVE said that he hoped the gentleman from Mississippi would be allowed to proceed. He felt assured that the gentleman's own good sense and regard to propriety would restrain him from going into a course of remark irrelevant to the subject, or disrespectful to the House. Let us hear him.

Mr. PLUMMER asked if the House would hear his explanation. It was usual to permit members, when called to order to explain.

The SPEAKER said that he felt reluctant to refuse the gentleman liberty to explain. He presumed the House would consent to an explanation.

The House appearing to acquiesce,

Mr. PLUMMER said that he had not been aware that he was out of order in the remarks he had made. The proposition before the House was to amend the constitution of the United States; and his object had been to go back to show the origin of Government, and thence to proceed to the origin of our own Government; and he had quoted the Holy Scriptures to show the origin of man as well as of Government, [great laughter.] It had been far from his intention to keep the subject off by speaking from the point. There had been nothing like a concerted plan, as the gentleman from Virginia seemed to insinuate; and so far he pronounced the remarks of that gentleman untrue. There was nothing like a plan to defeat the measure; and he was opposed to having the gag-law forced upon him in the discussion of a great constitutional question. Here Mr. P. was again

called to order.

Mr. ANTHONY then demanded the yeas and nays on the question of allowing Mr. PLUMMER to proceed. This

[H. OF R.

was too important a question, he said, to be passed over. He wanted to know whether the mouths of gentlemen on that floor were to be gagged in this way.

The yeas and nays were ordered, and, being taken, resulted as follows: Yeas 136, nays 39.

So the House determined that Mr. PLUMMER should be permitted to proceed.

Mr. PLUMMER said that he had prepared himself to discuss the constitutional question to the best of his abilities. He had never enjoyed the benefit of a classical education, as the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. WISE] had, nor was it expected by the House that he should deliver as classical a speech as that gentleman could. But he had prepared himself as well as he was able, and had availed himself of the views of gentlemen much better qualified to discuss such a question than he could pretend to be, and he had followed the example of those gentlemen in consulting the best written arguments to which he could obtain access; and he had believed that he was going to deliver a speech which he could afford to get printed in a pamphlet form, and which would be very acceptable among his constituents.

It occasioned him great regret that any gentleman should suspect him of a design to intrude upon the time of the House at such a moment as this, or to sport with the feelings of the House or of any member of it, or to permit himself to be used as a tool by any man or set of men whatever. He assured gentlemen that he was utterly incapable of any such course. It was very true that he had intended, in the speech he wished to deliver, to make an avowal of his political creed, and a full exposition of the principles of the working-men of Mississippi, perhaps, which might have given offence to some one of the two or three or more parties into which the House was divided. He had, however, felt but little confidence in his capacity to address the House. Indeed, he believed that he had had too little confidence in himself, and had put too low an estimate on his own powers, since he had now learned, by the vote just taken, that he was much more popular with the House then he had thought himself to be. In gratitude for that vote, and with the purpose of showing that his object had not been to speak against time, or to defeat the measure by a side-wipe, he should content himself by having the manuscript of the speech he had prepared printed, for the use of his constituents, and yielding the floor to the gentle. man from Virginia, [Mr. WISE,] who was so much better calculated to make a display than he was.

Mr. EVANS then addressed the House.

He had felt

a strong repugnance to claim their attention, notwithstanding the importance of the subject, in consequence of the short time remaining of the session. He was averse to changes in the constitution, and the resolutions he deemed objectionable. There was but one which he could feel disposed to countenance; and that was the proposition to restrict the presidential term to six years. There was a generally pervading sentiment among the people of this country, in favor of that project, and he might be induced to yield to it his assent, though he did not esteem it of essential importance. He was utterly opposed to all the remainder. First, they recognised the plurality system of elections, while various States adhered to the majority mode, and held the other most unsafe and impolitic. It would be deemed extremely unjust in the latter to ask or compel the former to abandon their views and adopt the majority system. Again, they abolished the district system, which would destroy the influence and power of the smaller States. A majority of one vote, in the largest State, might control all of her forty electors, and cause them to be thrown for an individual. Had the last election been conducted on the district system, it would have been seen to have been a much more closely