H. of R.

Removal of the Seat of Government.

OCTOBER, 1814.

Seat of Government from the City of Wash-propriated, for the term of five years, to be applied, ington.

The question for rejection of the bill came first in order, and was stated from the Chair.

Mr. FARROW, of South Carolina, rose, and stated the reasons why, though he should eventually vote against the bill, he should now vote against the rejection of it.

Mr. RHEA, of Tennessee, replied to some of those reasons.

The question on the rejection of the bill was then put and negatived, by the following vote: For the rejection 76, against it, 79, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Archer, Avery, Barbour, Bard, Barnett, Bayly of Virginia, Bowen, Burwell, Cannon, Chappell, Clopton, Comstock, Crawford, Culpeper, Cuthbert, Dana, Earle, Eppes, Evans, Fisk of Vermont, Forney, Forsyth, Franklin, Gaston, Gholson, Glasgow, Goldsborough, Goodwyn, Griffin, Hall, Hanson, Harris, Hawes, Hawkins, Hopkins of Kentucky, Hubbard, Humphreys, Hungerford, Irving, Jackson of Virginia, Johnson of Virginia, Johnson of Kentucky, Kennedy, Kent of Maryland, Kerr, Kershaw, King of North Carolina, Lefferts, Lewis, Lowndes, Macon, McCoy, McKee, McKim, Montgomery, Moore, Nelson, New ton, Pearson, Pickens, Pleasants, Rhea of Tennessee, Ringgold, Roane, Robertson, Sage, Sevier, Smith of Virginia, Strong, Stuart, Telfair, Troup, White, Wilson of Pennsylvania, Wright, and Yancey.

under the direction of the President of the United States, for the erection of suitable buildings within the city of Washington, for the accommodation of the President of the United States, the two Houses of Congress, and the several Departments of the Government, and that the same shall be paid annually to the

order or orders of the President of the United States." After much interesting debate this motion was agreed to, ayes 95.

The Committee rose, and reported the bill with the amendments, which were also concurred in by the House.

And the question was then put, "Shall the bill be engrossed and read the third time?" and decided as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Alexander, Alston, Baylies of Massachusetts, Bigelow, Boyd, Bradbury, Bradley, Brigham, Brown, Butler, Caldwell, Champion, Cilley, Clark, Condict, Conard, Cooper, Cox, Creighton, Crouch, Davenport, Davis of Pennsylvania, Denoyelles, Desha, Duvall, Ely, Fisk of New York, Geddes, Gourdin, Grosvenor, Hasbrouck, Hulbert, Ingersoll, Irwin, Jackson of Rhode Island, Kent of New York, King of Massachusetts, Law, Lovett, Markell, Miller, Moffit, Moseley, Oakley, Ormsby, Pickering, Piper, Pitkin, Post, Potter, John Reed, Rea of Pennsylvania, Rich, Ruggles, Schureman, Seybert, Sharp, Sherwood, Shipherd, Skinner, Smith of New York, Stockton, Sturges, Taggart, Taylor, Thompson, Udree, Vose, Ward of Massachusetts, Ward of New Jersey, Webster, Wheaton, Wilcox, and Winter-74.

NAYS-Messrs. Alexander, Alston, Baylies of Massachusetts, Bigelow, Boyd, Bradbury, Bradley, Brigham, Brown, Butler, Caldwell, Cilley, Clark, Condict, Conard, Cooper, Cox, Creighton, Crouch, Davenport, NAYS-Messrs. Archer, Avery, Barbour, Bard, BarDavis of Pennsylvania, Denoyelles, Desha, Duvall, Ely, nett, Bayly of Virginia, Bowen, Burwell, Cannon, Farrow, Findley, Fisk of New York, Geddes, Gourdin, Chappell, Clopton, Comstock, Crawford, Culpeper, Grosvenor, Hasbrouck, Hulbert, Ingersoll, Irwin, Jack-Cuthbert, Dana, Earle, Eppes, Evans, Farrow, Findson of Rhode Island, Kent of New York, King of Mas-ley, Fisk of Vermont, Forney, Forsyth, Franklin, Gassachusetts, Law, Lovett, Lyle, Markell, Miller, Moffit, ton, Gholson, Glasgow, Goldsborough, Goodwyn, GrifMoseley, Oakley, Ormsby, Parker, Pickering, Piper, Pitkin, Post, Potter, John Reed, Rea of Pennsylvania, Rich, Ruggles, Schureman, Seybert, Sharp, Sherwood, Shipherd, Skinner, Smith of New York, Stanford, Stockton, Sturges, Taggart, Tannehill, Taylor, Thompson, Udree, Vose, Ward of Massachusetts, Ward of New Jersey, Webster, Wheaton, Wilcox, and Winter. The bill was then read a second time, and referred to a Committee of the Whole; and the House immediately resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the said bill, it having been made the order of the day for to-day, in preference to Monday, by a majority of 86 to 65

votes.

Mr. FISK, of New York, moved to fill the blank for the place of removal with Philadelphia.

Mr. LEWIS, of Virginia, moved to fill it with Georgetown.

Mr. LEWIS, and Mr. HOPKINS, of Kentucky, spoke against the insertion of Philadelphia, and Mr. PICKERING in favor of it.

The motion to insert Philadelphia was agreed to by a large majority; and the other blanks in the bill were filled up.

Mr. LEWIS, of Virginia, then moved to insert the following section as an amendment to the bill:

"And be it further enacted, That the annual sum of one hundred thousand dollars be, and is hereby, ap

fin, Hall, Hanson, Harris, Hawes, Hawkins, Hopkins of Kentucky, Hubbard, Humphreys, Hungerford, Irving, Jackson of Virginia, Johnson of Virginia, Johnson of Kentucky, Kennedy, Kent of Maryland, Kerr, Kershaw, King of North Carolina, Lefferts, Lewis, Lowndes, Lyle, Macon, McCoy, McKee, McKim, McLean, Montgomery, Moore, Nelson, Newton, ParRinggold, Roane, Robertson, Sage, Sevier, Smith of ker, Pearson, Pickens, Pleasants, Rhea of Tennessee, Virginia, Stanford, Strong, Stuart, Tannehill, Telfair, Troup, White, Wilson of Pennsylvania, Wright, and Yancey-83.

sition; Messrs. Caperton, Ingham, Murfree, on leave; [Absent on this vote.-Mr. Anderson, from indispo

Messrs. Breckenridge, Calhoun, Davis of Massachusetts, Hale, Hopkins of New York, Howell, Kilbourn, Reed, Ridgely, Sheffey, Smith of Pennsylvania, Tallmadge, Williams, Wilson of Massachusetts, and Wood, who have not attended at the present session.]

So the House determined that the bill should not be engrossed for a third reading; in other words, that it should be rejected.

MONDAY, October 17.

Two other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, JOHN WILSON, and from Pennsylvania, ISAAC SMITH, appeared and took their seats.

Mr. WRIGHT, of Maryland, presented the petition of Thomas Bruff, inventor of the method of

manufacturing bullets and shot by compression, stating the destruction of certain of his machinery proposed to have been connected with the steamengine belonging to the late navy yard in this city, and praying that Congress will take his case into consideration.-Referred to a select committee.

Mr. YANCEY, from the Committee of Claims, made a report on the petition of Captain Alexander Sevier, praying remuneration for certain losses sustained in the public service, admitting the equity of his claim, but recommending a rejection of it on general legal principles.-Laid on the table.

The report is as follows:

That the petitioner is a Lieutenant of Marines in the service of the United States. On the 16th October, 1812, he was ordered to go from Washington City to the encampment near St. Augustine, in East Florida; and on his way to that place, near Occoquan, his trunk was cut off the carriage in which he was, and robbed, as he states, of $200 in bank notes, and a check drawn in favor of the petitioner on the Bank of Petersburg for $200, and all his military clothes. It is stated in the petition that nearly one-half of the money belonged to the United States, having been advanced to him for public service. The petitioner asks to be remunerated for the money lost, and compensated for the apparel. The petition was before the Committee of Claims at the last session of Congress; the committee were then of opinion that the petitioner was not entitled to relief; the present Committee of Claims accord with that opinion. In this case there is no satisfactory evidence of the loss of the property; in all cases the kind of evidence of that fact should be clear, positive, and uninterested. The committee, however, are of opinion that, taking the claim in its greatest latitude as related in the petition, sound policy requires that it should be rejected. When a public agent or officer receives money of the Government, he should keep it safe. There are but few cases in which he should be exonerated of his accountability; it is not believed this is a case of that description. They therefore recommend to the House the following resolution:

Resolved, That the prayer of the petitioner ought not to be granted.

Mr. JACKSON, of Virginia, made a motion to print two thousand additional copies of the instructions to our Ministers to treat of peace in Europe.

Mr. GROSVENOR, of New York, moved to amend the said motion so as to print these instructions entire, as received from the President, (that is, including the few passages not deemed proper for publication.)

The SPEAKER feeling a difficulty in receiving this motion under present circumstancesMr. GROSVENOR required the galleries to be cleared, and strangers were excluded accordingly. The doors remained closed for two hours; when they were again opened, it appeared that the motion of Mr. GROSVENOR was rejected, and that of Mr. JACKSON was agreed to.

MR. JEFFERSON'S LIBRARY. The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. LEWIS in the Chair, on the reso

H. of R.

lution from the Senate authorizing the Library Committee to contract for the purchase of Mr. Jefferson's library.

Mr. OAKLEY, of New York, moved so to amend the resolution as to leave it open to the Library Committee to contract for the purchase of a library for the use of Congress.

On this motion considerable desultory debate took place; the purchase of Mr. Jefferson's library being opposed by Messrs. OAKLEY, JOHN REED, and GROSVENOR, and advocated by Messrs. WRIGHT, SEYBERT, ROBERTSON, HAWKINS, and FORSYTH.

The objections to the purchase were generally its extent, the cost of the purchase, the nature of the selection, embracing too many works in for-eign languages, some of too philosophical a character, and some otherwise objectionable. Of the first description, exception was taken to Voltaire's works, &c, and of the other to Callender's Pros pect Before Us.

On the other hand, those who advocated the purchase proposed to be made, contended that so valuable a library, one so admirably calculated for the substratum of a great national library, was not to be obtained in the United States; and that, although there might be some works to which gentlemen might take exception, there were others of very opposite character; that this, besides, was no reason against the purchase, because in every library of value might be found some books to which exceptions would be taken, according to the feelings or prejudices of those who examined them.

Mr. OAKLEY'S motion was negatived by the following vote-For the amendment 53, against it 87.

The Committee then rose and reported the resolution to the House, who took it up.

Mr. KING, of Massachusetts, moved to amend the resolution by limiting the power of the committee to the purchase of such parts of the library as they should deem suitable to the purpose.

[Mr. Jefferson, in his letter on the subject to Mr. SMITH, declines disposing of a part without the whole of his library.]

After some discussion, the question on this proposed amendment was decided by yeas and nays, by the following vote-For the amendment 47, against it 91, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Baylies of Massachusetts, Bigelow, Boyd, Bradbury, Brigham, Champion, Cilley, Cooper, Cox, Culpeper, Davenport, Ely, Farrow, Geddes, Goldsborough, Grosvenor, Hanson, Jackson of Rhode Island, King of Massachusetts, Law, Lewis, Lovett, Markell, Miller, Moffit, Moseley, Oakley, Pearson, Pickering, Pitkin, Post, Potter, John Reed, Ruggles, Schureman, Sherwood, Shipherd, Smith of New York, Stockton, Sturges, Vose, Ward of Massachusetts, Webster, Wheaton, Wilcox, Wilson of Massachusetts, and Winter.

NAYS-Messrs. Alexander, Alston, Archer, Avery, Barbour, Bard, Bowen, Bradley, Brown, Butler, Cannon, Chappell, Clark, Clopton, Condict, Conard, Crawford, Creighton, Crouch, Cuthbert, Dana, Denoyelles, Desha, Duvall, Earle, Findley, Fisk of Vermont, Fisk of New York, Forney, Forsyth, Franklin, Gaston, Gholson, Glasgow, Goodwyn, Gourdin, Griffin, Hall,

H. OF R.

Judiciary of Indiana Territory.

OCTOBER, 1814.

Harris, Hasbrouck, Hawes, Hawkins, Hopkins of Ken- was read twice and committed to a Committee
tucky, Hubbard, Humphreys, Hungerford, Hulbert, of the Whole on Thursday next.
Irving, Irwin, Jackson of Virginia, Johnson of Virginia,
..Johnson of Kentucky, Kennedy, Kent of New York,
Kent of Maryland, Kerr, Kershaw, King of North
Carolina, Lefferts, Lowndes, Lyle, McCoy, McKim,
McLean, Moore, Nelson, Newton, Ormsby, Parker,
Pickens, Piper, Pleasants, Rhea of Tennessee, Rich,
Ringgold, Roane, Robertson, Sage, Seybert, Sharp,
Smith of Pennsylvania, Smith of Virginia, Stanford,
Strong, Tannehill, Taylor, Telfair, Ward of New Jer-
-sey, Wilson of Pennsylvania, Wright, and Yancey.

Mr. JOHN REED. of Massachusetts, then moved to amend the bill by limiting the price to be given for the whole of the library to twenty-five thousand dollars.

Mr. STANFORD, of North Carolina, moved to postpone the further consideration of the subject to the first Monday in December next.

Mr. OAKLEY, of New York, moved to lay the resolution, and the last motion together with it, on the table.-Negatived.

The yeas and nays having been demanded on Mr. READ's motion, before mentioned, after further discussion, the House adjourned without deciding the same.

JUDICIARY OF INDIANA TERRITORY. Mr. JENNINGS presented a petition of the Legislature of the Indiana Territory, praying that a law may be passed requiring the presence of two judges to hold courts; and that the duties of the courts of the United States for said Territory may be more clearly defined.

The memorial is as follows:

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, the memorial of the Legislature of the Indiana Territory humbly showeth :

That, by a law of Congress, one of the judges, appointed by virtue of the ordinance for the government of this Territory, is authorized to hold a court. Thus, one of the judges being competent to hold a court, may decide a principle, or a point of law, at one term, and, at the next term, if the other two judges are present, they may decide the same principle or point of Mr. STANFORD's motion was then also nega-law different. Thus the decisions of the superior court, tived. organized, we presume, by the General Government, finally to settle in uniformity the principles of law and fact, which may be brought before them by the suitor, may be, and frequently are, in a state of fluctuation; hence the rights of persons and property become insecure. There is another evil, growing out of the system, of one judge being competent to hold the superior court, or that court which forms the last resort of the suitor Another member, to wit: from Massachusetts, in any Government, and particularly in the Territory; WILLIAM REED, appeared, and took his seat. for appeals are taken from all the courts of inferior Mr. McKIM presented a petition of Daniel Ren-jurisdiction in the Territory, to the court organized by ner and Nathaniel H. Heath, rope makers in the City of Washington, praying compensation for their wrought and unwrought materials, which were consumed by fire, by order of the enemy, on the 25th of August last, and which they were prevented from previously removing to a place of safety by the impressment of their vehicles of transportation into the public service.-Referred to the Committee of Claims.

TUESDAY, October 18.

the ordinance, which inferior courts are never constituted of less than two judges. Thus the suitor in the Territory is frequently driven to the necessity of appealing from the judgment of two men to that of one; for the next superior court, as the other two judges but this dilemma only constitutes part of the solecism may overturn the principles of the decision of their brother judge at the preceding term. Hence the want of uniformity in the decisions of the court of the last resort. Anger and warmth in the suitors, and a conMr. Lewis, of Virginia, presented the memo-fusion in our system of jurisprudence, is the result. rial of a number of inhabitants of Alexandria, stating their indignant surprise at the slanders in circulation respecting that city, and praying a full and fair examination by Congress of their conduct during the late visit of the enemy to that town. The memorial was read.

Your memorialists beg leave further to suggest the propriety and necessity of defining, with more precision, the duties of the judges appointed by virtue of the ordinance for the government of the Territory. The ordinance says there shall be a court to consist of three judges, who shall have a common law jurisdiction. The same instrument points out the way a Legislature may be organized; but in no part does the ordinance

Mr. LEWIS moved to refer the memorial to the committee of investigation appointed on the subject; which motion, after some desultory conver-expressly delegate to the Legislature the power of regsation, was agreed to.

Mr. STANFORD, from the Committee of Revisal and Unfinished Business, made a report, in part: which was read, and ordered to lie on the

table.

ulating when and where the superior courts are to be held, or the manner how they are to do business. This power, by a kind of common consent of the judges, the Legislature have assumed from the necessity of the case, as the ordinance creating the courts leaves it afloat, without identifying either the time when, the place where, or the manner how, this court is to exerthat Congress would define the jurisdiction of the sucise their jurisdiction. Again, it would be desirable perior court. We presume that it is a sound rule for the construction of a constitution or a law, that it must be construed from the face of it, and not travel to the Mr. PLEASANTS also reported a bill for the re-history of other times and other Governments in search lief of the officers, petty officers, and seamen, of the meaning of our ordinance, or any act of Conunder the command of Joshua Barney; which gress. We beg leave to suggest the propriety of point

Mr. PLEASANTS, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, reported a bill directing the staff officers of the Army to comply with the requisitions of naval and marine officers, in certain cases; which was read twice and committed to a Committee of the Whole on Thursday next.