glory in the affairs of the Guerriere, and laid at your feet the bloody trophies of its lake victories; you could no longer close your eyes in indifference to this hitherto neglected arm of protection. Entertaining, then, the sentiments which I have expressed, let me not be charged with hostility to any of the defences of my country. But, sir, what have we now proposed to us, under the specious title of "making appropriations for certain fortifications of the United States, for the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty-six?" A bill, as originally reported, (and founded, we are to presume, upon the estimates of the proper Department,) asking for these objects the sum of $1,875,592 95; and this bill increased in Committee of the Whole to the enormous sum of $3,667,645 95. An increase sprung up at midnight upon a House exhausted in body and mind by a protracted session of fourteen hours, without any previous warning, and without the knowledge of, at least, a portion of the very Committee of Ways and Means. In vain we asked for estimates, for reasons for this strange procedure-none were to be furnished, on compulsion, to a "factious minority." In vain we urged the impossibility of expending so large an amount during the short recess of Congress, and the danger to the country of increasing improperly and unnecessarily the price of labor. We were met by a dead vote. From such a course of proceeding, such indiscreet haste, what can we infer, other than a foregone conclusion on the part of a majority, confident in its strength, to deplete the Treasury of the people, without regard to the wants of the Government or the objects of expenditure? When, before, in the history of this Government, have committees dared to tease the heads of bureaus, to know whether it were not possible to expend a given amount of the people's money? Sir, I pronounce the proposed expenditure, in itself, improvident, and uncalled for by the wants of the country; and yet the proposition comes to us from the friends of an administration that was to curtail extravagant expenditures, reform abuses, prevent the power of the General Government from coming in conflict with the freedom of elections and of opinions, and to bring it back, in all its branches, to its original simplicity.

How far the freedom of opinion has been regarded, let the list of removals from office for opinion's sake attest-a list exceeding in seven years the aggregate of all removals (for cause or otherwise) during all previous administrations. And then as to retrenchment. A distinguished Senator from Virginia, in 1827, in his place, pointed to the alarming increase in the ordinary expenditures of the Government since the days of Mr. Jeffer. son. The expenditures in 1827, by an administration denounced for its extravagance, was thirteen millions of dollars; in 1828 it was about thirteen and a half millions, and the estimated expenditure for 1829 was about fourteen millions. I speak, of course, irrespective of pay ments towards the public debt during these periods, and I stop not to fatigue the House with the precise amounts, nor to extend the examination through a long series of years. General results will illustrate every argument, and I have taken for the starting point the time immediately preceding the commencement of the present ad.

ministration.

Not to take up the language of the Virginia Senator before alluded to, and pronounce an ordinary expenditure of thirteen millions as extravagant and boding evil, and making every liberal allowance for the growth, and consequently increased wants of the country, we may certainly assume eighteen millions to be a liberal allowance for an administration professing so great a regard for strict economy; and yet we were told at the commencement of the present session, by the Executive, that about twenty-four millions of dollars would be required for the present year.

[JUNE 7, 1836.

I might, sir, find ample justification for my opposition to the amendments under consideration, in this open and bold violation of every pledge of economy given to the people by those now in power, at a time when they were seeking it. But I have other grounds of opposition to these amendments. I am in favor of the bill now on your files, "to appropriate, for a limited time, the proceeds of the sales of the public lands;" and the present exhausting project is designed, indirectly, to defeat the great objects of that bill. This is not the time to enter at large upon the argument of that subject. The time will, however, come, when the merits of that bill must be discussed, and no longer kept from public view by the legerdemain of legislation. The people are making up an issue on that subject, and every effort of mine shall be made to hasten the trial of that issue. Without, however, going at large into the argument, I may be allowed, I trust, (because most pertinent to my purpose,) to glance, in passing, at some of the reasons inducing me to favor a distribution.

First, then, I hold it to be the only course left, in the present condition of the country, in which you cau fully and fairly answer the terms and objects of the deeds of cession. I will detain the House by referring to the terms of but one of those deeds-the one from Virginia, made and accepted on the 1st of March, 1784. The terms of one of the conditions of that cession are as follows: "That all the lands within the territory, as ceded to the United States, and not reserved for, or appropriated to, any of the before-mentioned purposes, or disposed of in bounties to the officers and soldiers of the American army, shall be considered as a common fund, for the use and benefit of such of the United States as have become, or shall become, members of the confederation, or federal alliance of the said States, Virginia inclusive, according to their usual respective proportions in the general charge and expenditure, and shall be faithfully and bona fide disposed of for that purpose, and for no other use or purpose whatsoever." This language is, for all substantial purposes, the same with that used by the other States in their cessions of the public domain. And the national debt contracted, and being contracted, at the time of the cession, having been paid off, the question arises: How are the terms of this high trust, in its further fulfilment, to be executed? By graduating, then treating as refuse, and afterwards ceding, the public lands to the respective States within whose limits they may be situated? By what perversion of language can Virginia be said to "be included" in a gift of all your lands to Missouri? Were this a case of a private trust, I submit to the House, with great confidence, that no legal tribunal would hesitate to enforce its performance in the manner proposed in the bill to which I have alluded. The objections to a distribution of the surplus revenue, whether arising from customs or the sales of the public lands, contained in the celebrated veto message of the 4th of December, 1835, were not felt as early as 1829. In the annual message of the 8th of December, 1829, the President says: "To avoid these evils, it appears to me that the most safe, just, and federal disposition which could be made of the surplus revenue, would be its apportionment among the several States, according to their ratio of representation." The same high officer again, in language equally explicit, recommended the measure of distribution in the messsge of the 7th of December, 1830. Distinguished statesmen, in the several States, had for years before been looking to a state of things when the General Government might, without embarrassment, apportion at least the proceeds of the sales of the public lands; and the repeated ted recommendation of the President left little doubt of the fulfilment of

their hopes. The recommendation was hailed as in accordance with an enlightened public sentiment, and as

giving an earnest of the well-considered opinions, and settled convictions, of the Executive and his cabinet. In view of this, I cannot feel the force of the argument heretofore urged upon this floor, "that it would be useless for Congress to legislate on this subject, and pass the land bill, inasmuch as it could never receive the sanction of the Executive, and become a law." Considering our fallibility, and the changes of opinion going on in the world, as well as the various opinions expressed by the Executive in reference to another important subject, (the United States Bank,) I should rather infer that the opposition expressed in the message of 1833 might, nay, had yielded to a more thorough examination of the subject. Be that, however, as it may, we cannot take counsel from considerations of that kind; our path of duty is plain, and must be trodden, regardless of consequences. Sir, of this public domain, there are yet unsold seven hundred millions of acres of land, situate without the States; and, probably, about three hundred millions of acres situate within the States. make this statement from an inspection of your documents, and the best information I have been able to obtain; (and I have taken some pains to examine the matter;) it may not be precisely accurate, but I am satisfied it is sufficiently so for all the purposes of this argument. Basing my calculations upon the present condition of your Treasury, the probable receipts for the remainder of the year, and the reasonable demands of your Government, I aver that the proposed appropriation would give to the State of New York $3,309,503, and to each congressional district the sum of $84,074 annually. What a fund to relieve the States from taxation, enable them to prosecute their magnificent schemes for internal

I

[H. or R.

system, nor excite unnecessary alarm, no mawkish sensibility shall, on the other, deter me from proclaiming to the people the truth on this subject; and disclaiming, for one, any mere party views, I call upon those having the control of public affairs to reflect upon the fearful responsibility they incur to their country, in case this treasure, or any portion of it, be ultimately lost. When the Bank of the United States was the depository of the public moneys, the Executive felt it to be his duty, more than once, to call the attention of Congress to the safety of the deposites. This he did in his message of the 4th December, 1832, and again in the subsequent message of the 3d December, 1833. And so sensible, at that day, was the National Legislature of the importance of correct information, that a committee was raised to examine the subject, and report the result of such examination. That committee instituted and went through with a most minute and laborious examination, which induced this House solemnly to declare to the nation, by resolution, that the public moneys were safe in their then place of deposite. Now, in 1832, when the attention of Congress was called to this subject by the Executive, the Bank of the United States had, on deposite, of public moneys, $6,957,621 54, and it had of specie in its vaults, $8,026,055 45, more than dollar for dollar to meet the demands of the Government. Compare, sir, this statement with the present condition of the people's e's money. You have thirty-six deposite banks, and an official paper from the Secretary of the Treasury of the 18th April, 1836, shows the immediate liabilities of these banks to be $93,000,069 96. Their immediate means to meet those liabilities to be $38,082,699 93. Again, sir, in another official paper, showing the situa

ing their resources, and ameliorating the condition of society! Distribute this fund, and you may then with truth say "you have restored to the States their lost rights."

But, sir, the proposition to graduate and then cede the public lands to the States is not only a violation (if carried out) of the terms and objects of the cession, but unjust in reference to the old States. To say nothing of the thirteen old States, will Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois-States but yesterday new, to-day comparatively old-consent to part with their share of the inheritance acquired by the blood and transmitted to them by the providence of their fathers?

The policy of your Government has ever been to place the lands at a price to enable actual settlers to purchase, to induce them to settle upon their purchases, and fell your forests. The General Government has been and is abundantly able to carry out its policy. Can any one venture to say as much for the State Governments? Are they as competent to resist the pressing calls upon their treasuries, backed by the cupidity of speculators, and tending either to retard the settlement of the country or to force the settler to pay an enhanced and exorbitant price for his land?

Again, sir, I am in favor of a distribution of your surplus revenue at present, because, secondly, I am most anxious to reduce the large amount of moneys now held by banks without law or regulation. The amendments to the bill under discussion will not effect that object, but leave the extravagant sums called for where they now are, to be reported hereafter as unexpended balances of appropriation. In approaching the subject of the deposite banks, I feel an embarrassment, arising in part from the consideration that every effort to induce gentlemen to look to the safety of our Treasury is denounced as an effort of party, for party purposes, and therefore to be disregarded; and in part, again, from the extreme delicacy of the subject. But whilst, on the one hand, I would not rashly tamper with your monetary

we are told they hold of our money $38,496,755 09, and that they have of specie $10,202,245 804. In view of these things, can the faithful sentinel proclaim "all is well?"

But this is not all. Suppose one of the receivers at your land offices to refuse to take from purchasers the notes of specie-paying banks, but, by way of particular favor and accommodation, cash the notes at 5 per cent. discount, and thus realize a small fortune. If reports be true, this is not a mere case of supposition. I put it, however, only as a supposable case, and even in that point of view it is worthy of our attention and examination. I do not propose now to discuss the vexed question, whether State banks are competent to answer the great end of their selection, to regulate the currency of the country, prevent derangement, and facilitate to the mercantile world domestic exchanges. They have been selected, (whether for good or for evil time only can fully determine,) and I am only desirous of so regulating them that the country may sustain no loss.

It was urged with great force and effect against the Bank of the United States, that it paid no interest upon the deposites of public money, although that bank had paid for its charter one million and a half of dollars. The deposite banks pay no interest--they have of course paid nothing by way of bonus, and are not subject to federal legislation. We were told of the impropriety of a course of legislation tending to make "the rich richer, and the poor poorer," and of the danger to our institutions in permitting foreigners to hold our stocks. Yet the Manhattan Bank of the city of New York is a deposite bank-it has a capital of two millions and fifty thousand dollars-six hundred thousand dollars of which capital I believe to be owned by the family of the Marquis of Carmarthen. This bank, by the returns nearest to the 1st of March, 1836, held to the credit of the Treasurer of the United States $3,000,552 37, and to the credit of public officers the sum of $272,943 53.

I do not make these remarks now by way of censure

upon the dominant party. The change in your deposites was well characterized as "an experiment," and the present system is operating, under a new order of things, with no national debt, and a Treasury full to plethora. They are made with the single view of inducing gentlemen, having the power, to come up to the work of examination--to disregard all influence arising from the cry "that the opposition are willing to reunite with them in pressing a full and fair investigation of subjects connected with the safe keeping of the national treasure, and its proper use and application." The necessity for immediate legislation is by no means lessened by a reference to the alarming increase of State banks and paper circulation within the last six years. In 1830, the whole number of banks may be set down at three hundred; in January, 1835, at seven hundred and fifty, with a circulation double what it was in 1830. I have not the means of stating the precise amount of circulation at the present time, but believe myself within bounds, putting it at one hundred millions. One of your Territories, (Florida,) with a population at present, and probably destined always to be, sparse, has, within the current year, proposed an increase of banking capital to the amount of twelve millions, with life and trust companies without limits. My own State (New York) has, during the past winter, increased her banking capital $5,670,000. What is to check this mad career in State legislation, and give to the country a metallic basis sufficient to support a superstructure already unwieldy, disjointed, and disproportioned? In looking at recent occurrences in another part of this hall, (upon "a bill to regulate the deposites of the public money,") I entertain the hope that something may yet be done, ere the close of the present session, to place your Treasury under the protection of law, and in the hands of responsible agents. It is due to all the best interests of the country, nay, to the banks themselves, that we should not separate without regulating, by law, the deposites of the public money. There is at present an uncertainty hanging over the subject, which must embarrass and cripple the banks, (if they have any reference to their own safety,) in attempts to meet the wants of the business classes, and relieve the pressure of the money market. They know not when they may be called upon to give up their deposites; they feel that the Secretary of the Treasury has it in his power to close their doors at any moment; and one consequence of this uncertainty is, that the large amount now in deposite is virtually with drawn from circulation.

I trust I am not mistaken in anticipating action upon this subject from those having the control of majorities. If so, we shall hear no more of an exhausted Treasury; of the want of surplus revenue; of fears that the States are to be bribed with their own money. It possibly may then be admitted that there is quite as much danger in leaving forty millions of money under the control of a man restrained by no law, if by any moral obligation, as in distributing it amongst the several States according to their ratio of representation.

Entertaining these views, and believing you will have in the Treasury, at the end of the year, between sixty and seventy millions of dollars; that you cannot expend over about thirty millions, including seven millions for Indian treaties, and including also the Indian wars now raging upon your borders, with the large appropriations already made for the navy and army, I shall oppose the extraordinary amendments proposed to the bill upon your table--believing that, in so doing, I grant to the country all that can be expended upon desirable objects, and that I shall contribute my mite in securing a fund now in jeopardy, and in restoring it to the people, from whom it was derived, for purposes entirely beneficent-that this is my high and imperative duty as one of the

[JUNE 7, 1836.

After some remarks from Mr. HOWARD, in reply, Mr. KINNARD called for the previous question, which was not sustained.

Mr. KINNARD said he desired to say a few words in explanation of his reason for having moved the previous question. It must be apparent that this bill has already consumed its equal share of the consideration of this House. He could not, for one, consent to postpone the other great questions about which the people of the country had more anxiety than about the appropriation of the enormous amount of money embraced in the amendments proposed to the bill. It was true, the previous question would have affected those amendments. But is the necessity to debate them for days and weeks so urgent as to justify the defeat of much, and perhaps nearly all, of the other measures which have been long demanded by the interests of the country, and particularly by the Western States, to whose affairs very little time had as yet been devoted? He would instance the case of the Cumberland road. It was well known that

the work on that great thoroughfare had long been suspended, on account of the failure to pass the necessary appropriation. Considering the time when it was acted on in the Senate, and introduced in this House, Mr. К. thought it was entitled to an early consideration. When, some days since, the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means proposed to make the present bill the special order of the day, Mr. K. felt it his duty to solicit the honorable chairman to include in his motion the Cumberland road bill. His wishes, and the measure referred to, seem to meet with no favor from that quarter.

It would be recollected that the appropriation originally proposed for that road in the other branch had been greatly reduced. On what ground, sir? The ostensible reason, although Mr. K. believed it untenable, was, that there would not be time to expend the money. While this delay is to be extended, is it fair to apply such an argument against the measure, in which the whole West is interested, while it falls powerless in the estimation of some gentlemen, when urged against the amendments now under consideration? Here you propose to add to the fortification bill an immense amount of the public money, exceeding by millions the original estimates. Are we satisfied that this amount will be required before the next session? Is your corps of engineers so numerous as to justify the expectation that this money can be judiciously applied to the construction of the works which they are to superintend during the present season, or within twelve or eighteen months? He apprehended that such an expectation is not generally entertained. Shall we, then, debate endlessly about appropriations which the public service does not now require, to the postponement and defeat of those which are absolutely necessary? This, he conceived, would not be extending fair treatment to the other interests of the country, and to the numerous persons who had claims against the Government outstanding and unpaid.

Mr. K. remembered full well what doctrine was held during the former Congress, in relation to appropriations of this character, by the republican party. Whenever it was then proposed to amend the fortification bill in this way, the House was reminded of the importance of the

estimates; that it was prodigal and extravagant to exceed them; that new works ought not to be commenced until the old were repaired and completed; and that new and extraordinary objects of expenditure should not be sought out and ingrafted upon bills of this description. Mr. K. considered this good doctrine; he had adhered to it throughout. The prospect of a French war impending over the country had induced him and the party with which he had acted to depart from it, in order to meet that particular emergency. When we have not such reasons, shall we depart from the usages and principles which have heretofore governed the republican party? Is there no other demand upon the Treasury, upon the time and action of this House, besides these fortifications? If we dare do nothing else, if any portion of this House should dissent from the course of policy indicated by the amendments, and by the arguments of some gentlemen, and should be denounced for it, it would then appear to him that one of the important landmarks of the democratic party was about to be abandoned, and it might become a matter of doubt how the parties of the day are divided. He hoped always to have it in his power to act with those whose polar star had been economy in the public expenditures. To that original and fundamental principle of the republican faith he, for one, was determined to adhere. Mr. K. was for appropriating whatever was required for the public defence in the proper time and manner. But, while he remembered that he was the representative of a laboring, agricultural, tax-paying, and patriotic people, he would not vote to disparage their principles and his own, and would endeavor to avoid giving his approbation to any system of prodigality which might be proposed from any quarter.

The debate was further continued by Messrs. LANE, HARDIN, HAWES, BOON, PARKER, and BRIGGS. Mr. BRIGGS asked for the yeas and nays on the amendment; which were ordered.

Mr. HARD moved an adjournment about 7 o'clock; lost: 73 to 83.

After some remarks by Mr. BELL, in opposition to the amendment,

Mr. CAMBRELENG moved that the bill be made the special order of the day for Friday next, from and after the hour of 11, A. M.; which was agreed to.

DISTRICT BANKS.

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 8. FRENCH WINES.

REVENUE SERVICE.

[H. or R.

versation between Messrs. WILLIAMS of North Carolina, SUTHERLAND, BOND, WISE, LAWRENCE, and GIDEON LEE,

Mr. GILLET observed that the duties and compensation of the officers of the revenue cutters are prescribed in the act of March 2, 1799. When this law was passed, the coast and commerce of this country were far more limited than they are at present. All know our commerce was then small, and our seacoast extended only to Florida. Our commerce is now expanded to an astonishing extent, and our limits have been enlarged so as to include the extensive coast of Florida, Alabama, and Louisiana. All who are acquainted with the climate of this added coast, and the course of commercial operations in that quarter, must arrive at the conclusion that this service has been rendered more arduous and hazardous. It is also incontestably true, that the expense of living in that quarter is far greater than it is in any other part of the Union. In 1799 the compensation then given these offi. cers would procure them nearly double the necessaries and comforts of life that the same sum now gives them. Every thing has risen in price, as all must know. The causes he would not now examine. It could hardly be disputed that it cost more to support a family on the ( seacoast than it did in 1799. This had been conceded by acts of Congress. A portion of the revenue officers had, by a law in 1816, or about that period, their pay increased fifty per cent. Another portion, those whose compensation depended upon fees of office, had had their pay increased by the increase of business at their respective offices; so that, on the whole, the pay of nearly every officer, except those in the cutter service, has been increased. These officers, who are very limited in number, remain as they were when their pay and duties were first prescribed; and this, too, when their duties are rendered more arduous and dangerous. They now guard the coast from the Passamaquoddy to Texas, and are out all seasons of the year. They must be on duty at sea amid the storms of the North and the hurricanes of the South. They must visit all vessels approaching our coast, whether there is disease on board or not. They must watch the movements of those who have designs upon the revenue, and fly to the relief of the wrecked mariner. Such services ought to be so compensated as to command men of capacity and integrity. This bill did not compensate them beyond what was given to others in the service, whose duties are not so arduous as those in the revenue service. He hoped the bill would pass.

Mr. HARDIN, after a few remarks, called for the yeas and nays on the passage of the bill; which were ordered.

After some further remarks from Messrs. SPEIGHT and BOON,

Mr. PEARCE, of Rhode Island, remarked, that, believing the House to be almost unanimous on this subject, he moved the previous question, which was seconded by the House: Yeas 80, nays 40.

Yeas

The main question was then ordered, and, being put, was decided, by yeas and nays, in the affirmative: 146, nays 52.

So the bill was passed.

MICHIGAN AND ARKANSAS.

In execution of the special order of Monday last, the House then proceeded to the consideration of the following bills:

"An act to settle and establish the northern boundary line of the State of Ohio."

"An act to establish the northern boundary of the State of Ohio, and to provide for the admission of the State of Michigan into the Union, upon the conditions therein expressed."

"An act for the admission of the State of Arkansas into the Union, and to provide for the due execution of the laws of the United States within the same, and for other purposes."

The first bill having been read,

Mr. THOMAS, after a brief explanation of the provisions of the bill, which he maintained had become unnecessary, from their being embraced in the bill to establish the Territorial Government of Wisconsin, and the bill to provide for the admission of Michigan into the Union, moved to lay it on the table.

Mr. VINTON appealed to the gentleman to withdraw the motion, as he desired an opportunity of showing that the separate boundary bill was indispensable.

Mr. THOMAS said: Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House contains three sections. By the first it is proposed to establish the northern boundary line of the State of Ohio where that State contends it ought to be fixed. The second section is designed to confirm the northern boundary line of the State of Indiana, as surveyed and designated by a former act of Congress, in conformity with the provisions of the law providing for the admission of that State into the Union. The third section of this bill was intended to fix the northern boundary line of the State of Illinois, as designated in a survey made in pursuance to the provisions of the constitution of that State. It will be remembered by the House that we have passed an act at the present session, establishing a Territorial Government for Wisconsin. In that act the southern boundary of the Territory, and the northern boundary of Illinois, are fixed on the line which, by the third section of the bill before the House, is to be made the north boundary of that State.

It is manifest, then, that the third section of this bill is unnecessary; the same may be said of the other two sections. The objects designed to be accomplished by them will be attained, if the bill next on the Speaker's table becomes a law. By its provisions the northern boundary lines of Indiana and Ohio are established, as it is proposed to fix them by this bill. This surely supersedes the necessity for any action on the bill before us. It will be a work of supererogation to place on the statute book two laws, designed to accomplish, in part, the same purposes, in totidem verbis. Believing this, and foreseeing that we shall gain time by such a proceeding, I move to lay the bill now before us on the table.

Mr. VINTON said he could not consent to renew the motion, and he would therefore ask for the yeas and nays; which were ordered, and were: Yeas 103, nays 103. The Chair voting in the affirmative, the vote was yeas 104, nays 103.

The next bill, being the "act to establish the northern boundary of the State of Ohio, and to provide for the admission of Michigan into the Union," &c., being then announced from the Chair,

Mr. WISE moved to postpone the further consideration of this bill till Monday, in order to proceed with the Arkansas bill.

Mr. THOMAS said he would call the attention of the House to the position of the two bills on the Speaker's table, and endeavor to show that this postponement is entirely unnecessary. These bills are from the Senate. By the rules of this House, two, I may say three, questions will arise, to be decided before they can become a law, so far as this House is concerned. We must first order each of these bills to be read a third time; the next question then will be, when shall the bill be read a third time? and the last question to be decided will be, shall the bill pass? Why, then, should Southern men now make an effort to give precedence to the bill for the admission of Arkansas into the Union? If they manifest distrust, must we not expect that fears will be entertained by Northern members, that unreasonable opposi

[JUNE 8, 1836.

tion will be made to the admission of Michigan? Let us proceed harmoniously, until we find that our harmony must be interrupted. We shall lose nothing by so doing. If a majority of the House be in favor of reading a third time the Michigan bill, they will order it to be done. After that vote has been taken, we can refuse to read the bill a third time, go into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, then consider the Arkansas bill, report it to the House, order it to be read a third time; and in this order proceed to read them each a third time, if a majority of the House be in favor of that proceeding.

Let it not be said that Southern men may be taken by surprise, if the proceeding here respectfully recommended be adopted. If the friends of Arkansas are sufficiently numerous to carry now the motion to postpone, they can arrest at any time the action of the House on the Michigan bill, until clear undubitable Indications have been given that the Missouri compromise is not to be disregarded.

Mr. MASON, of Ohio, moved to lay the former bill on the table, and asked for the yeas and nays; which were ordered.

Mr. MASON then withdrew the motion.

Mr. LEWIS asked for the yeas and nays on the motion to postpone the Michigan bill till Monday; which were ordered.

Mr. WISE advocated the motion to postpone the Mich❘igan bill, and the debate was continued by Messrs. CUSHING, PATTON, SUTHERLAND, BOULDIN, LEWIS, SPEIGHT, WILLIAMS of Kentucky, SEVIER, MANN of New York, HARDIN, and VANDERPOEL. Mr. BOON moved the previous question, being on ordering the bill to a third reading.

Mr. VINTON raised the point of order, that the previous question could not be moved, inasmuch as it had not been read.

The House refused to second the motion for the previous question: Ayes 69, noes 108.

Mr. ADAMS said a few words on the subject, and stated that when the Arkansas bill came into the House, if no one else moved the subject of the restriction of slavery, he should.

Mr. WISE, after some remarks, modified his motion by moving to refer both bills to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, with instructions to that committee to incorporate the two bills into one bill.

Mr. PATTON opposed the latter motion, and gave his reasons at length against it. If his colleague would so modify his motion as to refer both bills to the Committee of the Whole, omitting the instructions to incorporate them into the same bill, he would vote for it.

Mr. BOULDIN said he agreed with his colleague [Mr. PATTON] in a fact too plain for any to overlook, that both bills must be acted on separately, and that one must have the preference in point of time. Michigan had it at that time he was willing it should hold it. His colleague [Mr. PATTON] seemed to think that in the incipient steps in relation to this bill, it would be well enough to suffer Michigan to hold her present position; but that, before the final passage of the bill, it would be well to require of the House (or rather of the non-slaveholding portion of the Union) to give some unequivocal guarantee to the South that no difficulty would be raised as to the reception of Arkansas in regard to negro slavery.

Mr. B. was willing to go on with the bill for the admission of Michigan. He had the most implicit confidence in the House, particularly alluding to the nonslaveholding part of the Union, that no serious difficulty would be made as to the admission of Arkansas in regard to negro slavery.

If there were any serious difficulties to be raised in the House to the admission of Arkansas, upon the ground of negro slavery, he wished immediate notice of it. If