It seems, from the course of this debate, that this claim is now resisted, because it is supposed that it will be considered as a precedent, under which the Florida sufferers may claim indemnification. Sir, I rise to protest on this floor against any pre-adjudication of that question, which involves the fortunes and happiness of more than half of the inhabitants of East Florida. That question is too grave and important to be disposed of in advance, upon a petty claim of three hundred dollars, in the decision of which an attempt is made to establish a principle reversing established precedents, to be used as a pretext for rejecting the claims of the people of Florida, when they shall be presented for discussion, deliberation, and decision. Sir, there is not a member on this floor who has so little respect for his character as not to admit that if we are forced to decide, by some inexorable precedent or established principle, against those whose property has been destroyed in Florida, we shall, in paying that homage to principle and precedent, do an act at which justice and humanity shudder. These unoffending inhabitants were living in peace and quietude in a Territory under the protection of your laws, in possession of lands purchased from this Government, and remote from the Indian boundary which you yourselves had established, without any knowledge of a participation in the causes of that desolating war which has ravaged the largest portion of East Florida. They are the innocent sufferers, from their unfortunate contiguity to the theatre of operations, where you have attempted, in the execution of the settled policy of the Government, to acquire Indian lands, without affording adequate protection upon the approach of a war resulting from this policy, of which it is now proved that this Government was admonished and notified. It would ap pear to me, sir, that honorable gentlemen, who have any just sympathy for such unprovoked sufferings, or any respect for the rights of their fellow-citizens, would search for precedents, if such be necessary, to provide for their indemnification, instead of seeking an opportunity by which they may be refused. The deep interest of a large and respectable portion of my constituents in that important question, which in the course of time must come up for decision, has induced me to examine the principles upon which it rests with profound attention. [H. of R. It was upon this principle, too, that an agent was despatched, under a special act of Congress, to the borders of Canada, to pay for the property destroyed in the late war. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Love] has told the House that, if this bill passes, and that which he anticipates is to follow for the sufferers of Florida, he shall come forward with a claim for all the losses on the Niagara frontier. Sir, I hold myself ready to show that the principles already established by your own legislation, for the losses on the Niagara frontier, will cover all those which have occurred in Florida by this unprovoked war on those who are its victims. If I am not greatly deceived, payment has been made to every individual whose property was destroyed because it was in the military occupation of the United States. This was done on the ground that, by the rules that civilized warfare has sanctioned, private property of the border inhabitants would not have been destroyed but for that military occupation. Now, sir, apply this doctrine to the case of a savage enemy, one of whose maxims, and, it may be said, the only prominent rule of warfare, is, the indiscriminate destruction of property as well as life. I deny that the principle has any where been established, or that it ever can be, upon any sound consideration of national justice or law, that the inhabitants whose property is destroyed by a barbarian enemy are not entitled to demand payment from their Government. Where is it to be found? The United States, I admit, have generally taken the lands of the Indians by conquest or by treaty, after a general pacification, and indemnified the inhabitants. I can refer to one memorable instance-that of 1814, at the termination of the war with the Creek Indians. It is not my purpose now to go into these questions. I have been waiting for a report from the committee, before I was authorized by the rules of this House to say any thing on the subject of these losses. That report, I hope, will soon be made, when the subject will undergo a thorough examination, due to its intrinsic importance, and to a suffering and ruined people. I only rose to enter my protest, as I now do, against connecting the Florida sufferers with this decision, or against the employment of any such precedent, whatever the decision may be, to that case. Let every question stand on its own merits; and if the people of Florida are to be sacrificed in a savage and bloody war, brought on by the agents of the Government of the United States, and without adequate protection, let it be done by the usual appearances and formalities of a proper consideration of the treaties, laws, and usages, which are applicable to their condition. Before any question was taken on the bill, The House adjourned. SATURDAY, JANUARY 7. The honorable Mr. GHOLSON, member from the State of Mississippi, appeared, was qualified, and took his seat. JOHN WHITMAN. Among the reports made to-day, I undertake to say, sir, whenever that matter comes up for the consideration of this House, that, if there is any such usage or practice as that referred to by three gentlemen in this debate, that the United States are not responsible for lesses in war, I hold myself ready to maintain that that usage and practice is in violation of well-established principles of the law of nations, and of the fundamental institutions of society. I deny its application to civilized nations, either upon principle or usage, and I deny that it has been the practice of this Govern ment. I admit that there may be reasons why civilized nations, upon a mere question of expediency or policy, might, from the necessity of the case, and to avoid immense sacrifices, refuse indemnification, because the established maxims of civilized warfare do not justify the destruction of private property. And when any such Mr. STORER, from the Committee on Revolutionary destruction occurs, it is usually the act of some lawless Pensions, made an unfavorable one on the petition of freebooter, for whom the nation does not consider itself John Whitman, of Eastbridge, in the State of Massachuliable. I hold the true principle to be, that, as individ-setts, for a pension for services performed in the revolu uals have associated themselves in communities, surrendering a portion of their natural rights to the Government, in return for their promised protection, every nation is bound to demand redress of the aggressor for the destruction of private property. It was upon this principle that we did it against Spain, France, and England; and it was upon this maxim of national law that we demanded, and Great Britain acquiesced in the justice of the demand, payment for slaves deported from the United States during the last war. tionary war. Mr. S. moved that the report be referred back to the said committee, with instructions to report a bill granting the prayer of the said petition. Mr. S. said he had but a few words to say in support of his motion. The petitioner was a man of the age of one hundred and two years, and he asked a pension as a revolutionary soldier. The committee had refused the pension because there was not positive evidence that the petitioner had served six months, as required by the law of 1802. He had proved five months' service, and his own affidavit deposed to a service of six weeks longer, ma king more than the period of six months. He had received a commission as a lieutenant from the Continental Congress, dated March 20, 1776; and he was known to be a man of unquestionable veracity. Under these circum stances, the majority of the committee thought he had established his claim to a pension. The only question was, whether the one month's service had been sufficiently proved. The probability was that no similar case would again be brought before the consideration of Congress. Mr. REED was understood, from his personal knowledge of the petitioner, to bear testimony to the upright character and unimpeachable veracity of that individual. * Mr. HARPER said that, after the manner in which the petitioner had been spoken of, he felt very reluctant to say a single word in opposition to the motion of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. STORER.] But it involved the very serious question, how far a man's own testimony could be made a justifiable ground on which to grant him a pension. During the last year he (Mr. H.) had had a case under his own charge very similar to the present. The petitioner was not quite so old, but he was nearly 70 years of age. He (Mr. H.) had gone to the department to ascertain what could be done under the circumstances; and he was there informed that, according to the existing law, it was impossible to accept a man's own testimony as the basis for giving him a pension. The individual to whom he alluded had gone 150 miles, and procured testimony as to his services for a portion only of the requisite period; and yet, if the committee had acted on his own testimony, they could have proved that he had served full six months. The application was rejected. He (Mr. H.) would not say that the petitioner might not have been justly entitled to the pension, but the principle on which the petition had been rejected was, that if you accept a man's own testimony in one case it must be accepted in another. This was a dangerous principle, and the House should be careful how it gave sanction to it. Mr. STORER said that, under the law of 1802, probably one half of all the applicants for pensions applied for them on their own affidavits, and the law itself did not define the nature of the testimony which should be given. In the State from which he came there was no testimony, except that of a traditionary character, and the evidence of a very few persons who had survived up to this time. These were cases, therefore, which addressed themselves to the sound discretion of Congress. Frauds might take place, but it was in the exercise of that sound discretion that the prevention of frauds was to be found. Mr. GRANGER said he regretted that the gentieman from Ohio had pressed this application by a single word beyond the simple statement of the fact that there was now existing in our country a revolutionary soldier, he cared not how short the term of service had been, who was more than 100 years of age, and who had asked for a pension at the hands of the Government. Although an honorable gentleman over the way [Mr. REED] had, in his boyhood, known the petitioner, he (Mr. G.) imagined that there were very few within that hall who had even seen a man so far advanced in years. The case was one in which the petitioner had not much time to lose. It was like one which Mr. G. remembered to have heard in the Legislature of the State which he had in part the honor to represent, where it was urged in favor of a bill to incorporate a benevolent institution, that the individual who wished to endow it was probably, at that very time, on his deathbed; and that, unless the bill was speedily passed, the institution would never be endowed. It might be said, in the present instance, that the petitioner, a revolutionary soldier, had proved his [JAN. 7, 1837. services within one month of the time which would have entitled him to a pension; and that the House was frit tering away the few brief moments which the sands of life had yet to run, in debating whether, by granting him this pittance, they were not about to establish a most dangerous precedent. For himself, it was his sincere desire that there might be other revolutionary soldiers of that age who could avail themselves of this precedent, if indeed the patriotism of the House should be found equal to its adoption. Mr. WARDWELL said that he thought the present application should be received as all similar applications heretofore had been. A general bill had already been reported from the committee, providing for cases in which the term of service amounted only to three months; and if that bill should pass, the petitioner could take advantage of it. He was opposed, therefore, to the present motion. Mr. The gentleman from New York [Mr. GRANGER] had seemed to think that this individual was entitled to a pen. sion merely because he had lived a hundred years. He (Mr. W.) would say that the petitioner was not half as much entitled to a pension as others of less age; because this very fact proved that he, a strong and able-bodied man, living in the State of Massachusetts during the rev olutionary war, amidst scenes of bloodshed, desolation, and plunder, served only about three months out of sev en long eventful years of his country's struggles. W. contended that the very fact of his age told strongly against him. He was willing to give any man a pension who had served his country during the war, even if he had only cried "huzza," and done no more. when a man, at that time only forty-five years of age, and who might have done good service in his country's need, had given her only three months of his time, he thought it was not a case about which their tears should flow or their hearts be broken. There was, moreover, scarcely proof that he had seved three months--scarcely proof that he had served at all. He was a man who gave directions and made arrangements for other men to go to battle, but who staid at home himself. But Mr. RENCHER said there was much good sense in the remarks of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. WARD WELL.] He (Mr. R.) would inquire of the gentleman from Ohio, whether the petitioner had assigned any good reason why, during the whole revolutionary war, he had only served three months. Mr. STORER said the gentleman from New York [Mr. WARDWELL] was under a misapprehension as to the time of the petitioner's service. He had served more than three months. He was of a very respectable family, a man of influence in the part of the country in which he lived, and was, at the time referred to, a deacon of the church. He had done more in recruiting men, and in bringing the military together, than any other man in that section. Although only five months in service, all his acts show him to have been a good whig of that day; and Mr. S. thought that, at this distant period, it was invidious to speak of his age in the manner of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. WARDWELL.] Mr. REED corroborated the statement of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. STORER,] in relation to the person. al influence of the petitioner in the section of country in which he resided, and to the exercise of that influence during the revolutionary war. Mr. PEARCE, of Rhode Island, said his knowledge of what was now before the House was derived from the remarks made by gentlemen who were near him. It appears to me (said he) that the attempt is to bring this aged gentleman into the ship's cabin, through the cabin windows; he is certainly old enough to perform at least one voyage as a foremast hand. If I understand the question before us, it is this: he petitions for a pension, and the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions have reported against him. Some gentlemen are now anxious to have this report reversed, and to allow to the petitioner what he claims. I have no objection to his having what he claims, if, upon a full investigation of it, it should be thought proper to change the character of this report; but I do not find any thing in the question presented that should lift it out of the common operation of the rules of the House. The invariable practice of the House has been, where an unfavorable report has been made-a report thought by many to be erroneous-to refer such report to the Committee of the Whole House, cause it to be entered upon our calendar of private bills, and, when arrived at, to take the sense of the Committee of the Whole House on the question raised. Why should we here in the House discuss the merits of a report just made, not printed, and none of the accompanying documents laid before us? We have not the means of judging correctly of its merits, for we have not the information we ought to have, before we are called upon to vote. Sir, in my opinion, this report ought to take the usual course; and if it does, the friends of the petitioner may be able to accomplish all they can desire. But my friend from New York [Mr. GRANGER] would inquire into nothing but the age of the man; and, as he 19 found to be one hunrded years old and upwards, he is satisfied, and would extend his inquiries no further. Then, Mr. Speaker, it has come to this: longevity is to constitute a claim for a pension; and the man who has lived the longest, and not he who has fought the hardest, is to be pensioned by the Government. This old man, whose constitution has been invigorated by the salt air of Cape Cod, or regions round about there, for seventy or eighty years, where he resided that length of time, and who afterwards went to the State of Ohio, where be must have been retouched by the wand of Hebe, [Mr. P. was under the erroneous impression that he was now an inhabitant of Ohio,] is to be placed upon the pension roll solely on account of his old age, and is to continue a pensioner, no mortal man can tell how long. He has passed the usual time of dying, and is now as likely to live a thousand years as one day. The gentleman from New York refers to the action of the Legislature of that State to aid him in his argument. There an act of incorporation was hurried through both branches, to enable a man who was in extremis to give away his property to some institution, religious, perhaps, that was capable of receiving it before he died. I do not see the bearing of the case cited; but if what has been stated be in all respects true, the statute of mortmain ought, if it ever were in force in that State, to be re-enacted. I cannot, out of course, and in violation of our own rules, vote to pension a man whose claim is exclusively founded upon extreme old age. Let it be understood that longevity is to constitute hereafter a claim for a pension, and I will, if I should be a member of the next Congress, (an event, perhaps, not very probable, more especially if I should not be a candidate for re-election,) present to you pension applications in abundance; for I come from a portion of the country the most healthy of any in the world, and where the people live almost forever. Mr. RENCHER moved to lay the report and accompanying documents on the table; which motion was rejected. Mr. STORER then withdrew his motion to recommit, with instructions; and Mr. REED moved to commit the report and documents to the Committee of the Whole House. The motion prevailed; and the report and documents were committed accordingly, PUBLIC LANDS. [H. OF R. The unfinished business of the morning hour was the resolution heretofore offered by Mr. C. ALLAN: "Be it resolved, That a select committee of one member from each State be appointed, whose duty it shall be to inquire into the justice and expediency of making to each of the thirteen original American States, together with each of the States of Vermont, Maine, Kentucky, and Tennessee, such grants of the public lands, for the purposes of education, as will correspond in a just proportion with those heretofore made in favor of the firstnamed States and Territories, and that said committee have leave to report by bill or otherwise. But to avoid the objection of one State holding land in another, the committee is directed to insert a clause in the bill which they may report, providing that the grants to be made thereby shall be subject to sale under the laws of the General Government now in force, and that the proceeds arising therefrom shall be paid over to the States entitled to the same." To which resolution Mr. VINTON heretofore offered the following amendment: Resolved, That the said inquiry extend to all the States, and that the said committee be further instructed to inquire into the expediency of inserting a clause in said bill to pay said new States the value of the improvements made by them on the public lands, or to pay to them the amount the public lands would have been assessed for taxes, if they had been private property." Mr. JOHNSON, of Louisiana, heretofore moved to amend the resolution "by extending its provisions to all the States of the Union." To which amendment Mr. CLAIBORNE, of Mississippi, heretofore offered the following amendment: "And provided that no such grants shall interfere with or be located upon the claim or improvement of any actual settler on the public lands." Mr. LANE, who was entitled to the floor, having risen to address the House Mr. C. ALLAN requested the gentleman from Indi. ana to yield the floor for a moment, to enable him to offer a modification of the first part of the preamble thereto, by substituting the word "grants," for "donations." Mr. LANE having declined yielding the floor, the Speaker said the modification could not now be made. If it was Mr. L. then addressed the House at some length in opposition to the resolution. The resolution (he said) proceeded upon the supposition that nine of the new States, together with one Territory, had received upwards of eleven millions of acres of the public lands as a donation. This proposition was either true or it was untrue. If it was true, he contended it was unequal and unjust, so far as it regarded the new States. not true, it was an insult offered to those nine States, and the suffering and bleeding Territory of Florida, as well as the members who represent those States on this floor. The resolution proposed to give a certain por tion of the public lands to the seventeen old States; and this was unjust, because, by this proposition, the land was to be meted out to the old States, according to their population at the present time; and, when the new States had received their portion, they did not number one third their present population. According to this apportionment, Maryland, with a population of only half a million, would receive more of these lands than Indiana with eight hundred thousand citizens, and more than Ohio with a million and a half. And Kentucky, with a much smaller population, would receive more than Indiana or Ohio. It would be unjust to carry this resolution into effect, because the lands granted to the new States were not only received when the population of H. OF R.] Military Tactics-State of Michigan. the States was small, but when the lands were an unbroken wilderness, when there were no roads, no mills, no meeting-houses, no school-houses, and were only inhabited by wild beasts and the roving savages. But now, when all the comforts of life were to be found in the vicinity of those lands, the old States were to come in for a portion of them, equal to those granted to the new States. Who raised the value of those lands? Those who remained at home in ease, comfort, and luxury, or those hardy pioneers who went into the wilderness, subdued the savage, and made it smile and blossom as the rose? The old States, by this resolution, were to come in for a share of these lands, when they were not only easy of access, but when their value was raised by the enterprise and industry of the citizens of the new States. Mr. L. considered unjust. This Was it true, or was it untrue, that these lands were given to the new States as a donation? He always understood that a donation was a gift, and not founded upon any considerations but those of kindred or affection. Every thing which was founded upon contracts, however trifling the consideration, was a valuable consideration, and was equally binding on the parties, regardless of the amount of the consideration. Then, was the proposition true, that the new States received these lands as a donation? He proceeded, then, to show that they had not received an acre of land, except by a contract founded upon a bona fide consideration, and read extracts from the ordinance admitting Ohio, &c. into the Union, in support of his position. Mr. L. said that by this ordinance it would be seen that the lands had been received by the new States, on the condition that they would not tax the public lands while belonging to the Government, and for five years after their sale; and that the Government should retain the salt springs and all minerals found thereon. Mr. L. had not concluded his remarks when, the hour having elapsed, Mr. E. WHITTLESEY called for the orders of the day. Mr. YELL, by consent, offered an amendment to the above resolution, in order that the same might be printed. And, on motion of Mr. Y., the resolution, with all the pending amendments, were ordered to be printed to gether. MILITARY TACTICS. Mr. W. THOMPSON said it was with extreme reluctance that he intruded himself on the attention of the House at this particular time, but he for some time had had in his possession two important resolutions, which he was anxious to offer, and which would not create any present debate. He asked that they be read for the information of the House. Mr. JARVIS having objected to the reading of the same, Mr. THOMPSON moved a suspension of the rule for that purpose; which motion prevailed. The resolutions were then read, as follows: Resolved, That the Committee on the Militia be directed to inquire into the expediency of causing to be published, at the expense of the United States, an edition of the work of General Macomb and Major Cooper, on Tactics, &c., sufficient to furnish each commissioned militia officer in the United States with a copy. Resolved, That the Committee on Military Affairs be directed to inquire into the expediency of causing an examination to be made, by a board of officers of rank and experience, of the improvements in firearms by Cochran, Hall, Colt, and Baron Hackets, so as to exhibit, in tabular statements, the advantages of each in all important military points of view, and, especially, 1. Celerity of fire. 2. Efficiency of fire. 3. Extent of recoil. [JAN. 7, 1857. 4. Simplicity and cheapness of construction. 5. Durability. 6. Saving in ammunition and appendages. 7. Inconvenience from heated barrels in rapid firing. 8. Number of charges which may be carried by an infantry soldier. 9. Advantages when used against a charge by cavalry. 10. Advantages when used by cavalry. Mr. THOMPSON then moved a suspension of the rule to enable him to offer the said resolutions; which motion was rejected. So the rule was not suspended. STATE OF MICHIGAN. Mr. THOMAS asked the general consent of the House to take up the bill from the Senate, then lying on the Speaker's table, entitled "An act to provide for the admission of the State of Michigan into the Union, upon an equal footing with the original States." Objection being made, Mr. VANDERPOEL moved a suspension of the rules for the purpose; which was agreed to: Ayes 119, noes 2. The bill was then read a first and second time. Mr. THOMAS said he was instructed by the Committee on the Judiciary to move that the further consideration of this bill be postponed until Tuesday next, and that it be made the special order for that day, and each succeeding day thereafter, Fridays and Saturdays excepted, from and after the hour of one o'clock, until disposed of. Mr. T. remarked that it was proper he should take that occasion to say that, in the Judiciary Committee, as was doubtless the case in that House, there was a wide difference of opinion as to the mode of action the House itself should adopt, in disposing of this bill, when it should come up for consideration. Mr. T. was about proceeding, when The CHAIR interposed, and reminded the gentleman that the motion was not debateable. Mr. ROBERTSON moved that the bill be committed to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and be made the special order of the day for Tuesday next. The CHAIR remarked that the motion to postpone took precedence. Mr. JARVIS inquired whether, if the bill should be committed, it would be competent for a bare majority of the House to take it up and consider it. The CHAIR replied that it would be competent for the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, when in committee, to take it up; and it would be competent for a majority of the House to go into Committee of the Whole upon this when all the other orders on the Speaker's table had been disposed of. Mr. HARDIN wished to make a single remark. The bill involved an appropriation, inasmuch as it provided that Michigan should receive her portion of the surplus money. Now, whether the bill should be considered by the House as embracing an appropriation or not, Mr. H. considered it virtually The CHAIR said he was compelled to arrest debate. The motion to make the bill the special order, thereby giving it precedence over all other business, being one of priority, could not, under the rules, be debated. He added that it would require a vote of two thirds to carry the motion. Mr. ADAMS expressed a hope that that motion would prevail. The question, being taken, was lost: Ayes 99, noes 71-not two thirds. The motion of Mr. ROBERTSON, to commit, then recurring Mr. THOMAS rose and said it was his original pur JAN. 9, 1837.] William Anderson-Foreign Authors, &c. pose, as it was then his wish, not to interpose between the business of the House; and he therefore moved to postpone the further consideration of this bill until Tuesday next. This motion took precedence of the other. Mr. ROBERTSON said he would state, in a few words, the grounds upon which he had made the motion to commit. It was not with a view to produce a protracted debate, but because it appeared to him that a bill of such magnitude as this, providing for the admission of a State into the Union, demanded such a commitment if any bill ever did. If bills of this character were not to be committed to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, he could imagine no bill deserving to be committed to that committee. But there was an additional reason. The bill, though not in direct terms, did, in substance, contain a provision for an appropriation of public money; for it placed the State of Michigan, in regard to the distribution of the surplus treasure, upon the same footing with the other States. What was the effect of that provision? The right to receive a large portion of the public money, with the possibility that not one dollar of it would ever be demanded back again; thereby, in effect, contemplating a final disposition of it. Upon that ground, he moved that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. The motion to postpone was agreed to: Ayes 95, noes not counted. The CHAIR, in reply to a question from a member, said that when the bill came up on Tuesday, it would be open to all the other motions made that day. The House then passed to the private orders, and took up the bill for the relief of the representatives of WILLIAM ANDERSON. The debate was continued by Messrs. SHIELDS, EVERETT, and WARD, when Mr. HOWELL called for the yeas and nays on order ing the bill to be engrossed; which were ordered, and were: Yeas 52, nays 96. So the bill was rejected. Some other private business was transacted; after which, The House adjourned. MONDAY, JANUARY 9. FOREIGN AUTHORS. If any Mr. ADAMS rose and said he was desirous to make the general inquiry, whether any member of the House was charged with a petition from the authors of Great Britain to the Congress of the United States. gentleman was charged with such a petition, he (Mr. A.) had nothing further to state; he did not know but that the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means [Mr. CAMBRELENG] had such a petition in his hands. Mr. A. explained that his reason for making the inquiry was, that he had received a letter from a respecta ble person in England, Miss Harriet Martineau, enclosing a printed address or petition from certain authors of Great Britain to the Congress of the United States; and although the request was very distinct that he would favor the object of the petition, yet no positive request was made that he would present it. As the petition was merely a printed paper, without any signature, he did not feel himself at liberty to present it, if, as he presumed, there was in the possession of any other mem ber of the House, who would present it, a petition regu larly signed. Mr. CAMBRELENG said he had no such paper in his possession. And as it did not appear that any other member was charged with the presentation of the same, Mr. ADAMS VOL. XIII.-83 [H. of R. said he would wait another week or two; and if a formal petition should not be presented by that time, he would present the one which had been forwarded to him. ABOLITION OF SLAVERY, Mr. ADAMS offered to present the petition of one hundred and fifty women, whom he stated to be the wives and daughters of his immediate constituents, praying for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia; and moved that the petition be read. Mr. GLASCOCK objected to its reception. Mr. ADAMS said that, in reference to the reception of the petition, he did not know that he had any observations to make, except that he considered that the obligation rested on the House to receive this petition, and he felt himself bound by his duty to present it. Mr. BOON rose to a question of order. He would inquire whether, under the rule, a petition could be de bated on the day of its presentation. The SPEAKER said that, under a decision made at the last session of Congress, and which had been sanctioned by a large majority of the House, the question of "reception" was not included in the 45th rule, and that therefore it was debateable at the time the petition was presented. At Mr. ADAMS said he had not expected that any ob. jection would have been made to the reception of this petition, inasmuch as one petition of a similar character, presented by himself, had already been received. the last session of Congress, after much consideration and debate, it had been decided, as formally as any thing could be, that petitions of this description should be received; and the House had made a special order as to the manner in which they should be treated after they had been received. He considered that that precedent was good, at least so far as that the petition should be received. The decision of the House at the last session of Congress went quite far enough towards suppressing the right of petition in the citizen, and quite far enough towards the suppression of the freedom of speech in this House. It was proposed now to go one step further: the motion of the gentleman from Georgia went to settle the question, that a petition so interesting and important as the one under discussion could be presented, and should not be received a proposition directly in the face of the constitution itself. Now, he hoped that the people of this country wuuld be spared the mortification and the injustice and the wrong which would be inflicted upon them by their immediate representatives, by a decision that such petitions should not be received. No such example had been given. It was, indeed, true that all discussion, all freedom of speech, all freedom of the press, on this subject, had, within the last twelve months, been violently assailed; and assailed, too, in every form in which the liberties of the people could be assailed. This was the truth. He had lamented the decisions and determination of the House at the last session of Congress, even so far as they went. He considered them as outrages on the constitution of the country and on the freedom of the people. The present proposition proposed to go one step further. He hoped that step would not be taken, and that it would not receive the sanction of that House. It was always in the power of the House to reject petitions, after they had been considered; and the House, by a large and overwhelming majority, had given evidence enough to the country that they had no disposition to favor petitions of this character; that they were ready, too ready, to state their views against such petitions, and to reject the prayer of them. Amongst the outrages that would be endured by that portion of the people of this country whose aspirations were raised to the great |