Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

confirmed in this belief by gentlemen who profess to differ from me upon this subject. Sir, our actions outweigh our words, and while gentlemen from the South and West, whose constituents are cultivators of the soil, exclaim against a repeal of the embargo as disgraceful, they say the duty demanded by the British Government must be paid by the growers of produce, and that the carriers will receive full freight; and gentlemen from the North and East, whose constituents are many of them commercial, others seafaring men, urge the repeal of the embargo, because it deprives their constituents of commercial and nautical profits. These arguments prove to me that different habits and pursuits produce diversity of sentiments; but that we all consider honor and interest convertible terms. But I for one disclaim any share in that honor, which is contrary to our interest; nor do I wish to see our national concerns governed by the laws of chivalry, and see nations, like imprudent individuals, destroying each other without the prospect of gaining anything but a premature and inconsiderate death.

But gentlemen inquire, do you not prefer war to disgraceful submission? Yes, sir, I do prefer war to submission-but I ever have preferred, and yet prefer a candid, a full, and friendly explanation, to the honor of dying like Abner, as a fool dieth. For these reasons, I am for another attempt at negotiation. And as this attempt, however honest and sincere it may be on our part, may fail, I am for adopting some method to unite the American people. And although this bill, should the amendments proposed by the gentleman from South Carolina and the gentleman from Pennsylvania be adopted, is not just what I prefer, for I am decidedly in favor of repealing the whole embargo and non-importation system, and for permitting our merchants to arm in their own defence; it is the best terms I expect to get, and I am for accepting of it. And should the attempt at negotiation fail, and it prove necessary, I would then prepare in earnest for war; I would proceed to vindicate the honor of the nation and repel force by force. Then, sir, we shall have nothing to fear. The brave but peaceable citizens of the United States, when convinced of the justice and necessity of such a war, will unite as a band of brothers, not to support the embargo party nor the Federal party, but as free Americans to vindicate the honor of the nation, and maintain our rights, and transmit to posterity the rights and privileges which our fathers fought and bled to procure for us. But they are not so fond of war as to prefer that course, when they understand that these privileges could have been secured by a treaty. Believing this to be the desire and the interest of my constituents, and of the majority of the citizens of every portion of the Union, I am for pursuing this course. I am for making this bill as perfect as possible, in order to satisfy the citizens in every portion of the Union. Some gentlemen represent it as disgraceful to yield to the clamors or murmurings of the people. But 1 consider it the duty of the Representatives to re

H. OF R.

peal a law whenever it is known to be contrary to the wishes of the people. But gentlemen tell us this system is not displeasing to the people, that notwithstanding all that has been said upon the subject they do not believe it-they do not believe the people disapprove of the embargo. Sir, unbelief has ruined many, and I do awfully fear it will be our ruin. I am certain it will, if we persist much longer in it.

Mr. BIBB observed that, whatever should be the decision of the House, he should obtain one object; he should obtain the names of those who, in the commencement of the session, told the House that the proposition now under consideration was the most dishonorable that could be proposed, and would now vote in favor of it.

Mr. W. ALSTON said, notwithstanding the threat of the gentleman from Georgia, he should vote against his motion. He had a right, as well as the gentleman from Georgia, to judge of the nature of the proposition submitted to him. Every one who voted on the report of that committee, did not adopt its reasoning, and might have voted in whatever way he deemed proper, without consulting their explanation of it. He believed the nation looked forward to a modification of the embargo, and he should therefore vote for the bill.

Mr. Love opposed the motion to strike out the twelfth section. He thought it premature, at least, as there were considerable amendments contemplated to the bill. Mr. L. took an extensive range of argument to show that if the embargo system was repealed the non-intercourse would be the best substitute; that the effects of it would be felt by our enemies, perhaps in a greater degree than the embargo, especially after it was understood, in foreign nations, that the execution of the laws was opposed, even under the sanction of State authority; that the mode of treating infractions of our laws, as it respected our citizens, was a different thing, and he hoped would meet with proper attention. He thought the system to be substituted would probably bring our differences with foreign Governments to an issue of some kind, if the provisions were such as he wished. It was certainly desirable that a termination of some kind should be had to those differences. The honor and independence of the United States required it. Mr. L. replied to observations which had been made of the great power and revenues of England, by stating that the United States were better able now to meet the power of England, if war was to be resorted to, than in the year 1776, when the same causes of war existed, as at present, and when the resources of America were literally nothing. Mr. L. regretted the motion had now been made, as he feared it was calculated to make another false impression on the people of the United States; and, although he should vote against the motion, he should not consider it as committing himself on the final question.

Mr. Cook was against the motion. He considered the embargo as a measure which, in its friendship for commerce, was destroying it by

[blocks in formation]

grasping it too tight. He wished its grasp to be loosened.

Mr. G. W. CAMPBELL next took the floor. He was in favor of the motion under consideration. He said he was surprised at the change which a few weeks, during which he had been absent from indisposition, had produced on the minds of the members of the House. It seemed as if some enchantment had spread itself over them, which they perceived, and yet did not wish to remove. He urged many reasons against a repeal of the embargo, and against the bill proposed. But a few weeks ago, the House decided in favor of a continuance of the present system as the only means of honorably avoiding a war; and some of the very same gentlemen were now about to adopt a measure, which the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations had declared to be submission, viz: a partial repeal of the embargo. A removal of the embargo would render our property liable to capture, and give an opportunity to British subjects to take from the country in the manner most advantageous to themselves, twenty millions of property, which would otherwise be in the power of the United States in case of war, which was at least probable. It was a measure which would relieve our adversary without benefiting our own citizens in the slightest degree. Mr. C. expressed his astonishment how gentlemen, whom he perceived supporting this bill, could reconcile it with consistency to do so, when no change of circumstances had taken place, which could authorize a change in their opinions. Mr. C. also noticed the system of arining our merchant vessels, which he pronounced to be novel and futile. He did not state how he might vote on the bill when on its final passage. Mr. RANDOLPH replied to some of the observations of Mr. CAMPBELL on the subject of the arming system, and in relation to consistency.

Mr. RHEA, of Tennessee, replied to some of the remarks of Mr. CAMPBELL, and defended himself, as one who voted on the report of the Committee of Foreign Relations, from the charge of inconsistency. He was in favor of the present bill, and in voting for it should not change his ground. He thought that this bill was what the embargo ought to have been in the beginning. In commenting on Mr. CAMPBELL'S observation in relation to the property in this country, he said, that when we went to war for a moral right, he would not say that twenty millions of private property in this country should be taken possession of by

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

FEBRUARY, 1809.

Thomas Newbold, John Porter, John Rea of Pennsylvania, Benjamin Say, John Smilie, Richard Stanford, John Taylor, George M. Troup, Daniel C. Verplanck, Jesse Wharton, Robert Whitehill, and David R. Wil

liams.

NAYS-Evan Alexander, Lemuel J. Alston, Willis Alston, jr., Joseph Barker, John Blake, jr., Adam Boyd, Robert Brown, Epaphroditus Champion, Martin Chittenden, Orchard Cook, John Culpeper, Richard Cutts, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, junior, Daniel M. Durell, James Elliot, William Ely, John W. Eppes, William Findley, James Fisk, Francis Gardner, Jas. M. Garnett, Thomas Gholson, jr., Peterson Goodwyn, Isaiah L. Green, John Harris, John Heister, William Helms, Reuben Humphreys, Daniel Ilsley, Robert Jenkins, Walter Jones, James Kelly, Philip B. Key, John Lambert, Joseph Lewis, jr., Edward St. Loe Livermore, Edward Lloyd, John Love, Matthew Lyon, Josiah Masters, Wiliam McCreery, William Milnor, Daniel Montgomery, jr., Thomas Moore, Jonathan O. Mosely, Gurdon S. Mumford, Thomas Newton, Wilson C. Nicholas, John Pugh, Josiah Quincy, John Randolph, John Rhea of Tennessee, Matthias Richards, Samuel Riker, John Rowan, John Russell, Lemuel Sawyer, Ebenezer Seaver, Samuel Shaw, James Sloan, Jedediah K. Smith, John Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, William Stedman, Clement Storer, Lewis B. Sturges, Peter Swart, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, John Thompson, Abram Trigg, Jabez Upham, James I. Van Alen, Philip Van Cortlandt, Nicholas Van Dyke, Archibald Van Horn, Killian K. Van Alexander Wilson, and Nathan Wilson. Rensselaer, Isaac Wilbour, Marmaduke Williams,

Mr. RANDOLPH moved to strike out of the

twelfth section the exceptions to the general removal of the embargo.

Mr. R. supported the motion on the ground of the expediency, for general reasons, of a total repeal of the embargo. And, in addition to the general reasons in favor of a repeal, he observed that although the embargo was to be but partially repealed, in point of practice, no attention would be paid to the remaining part of it. He deprecated the fostering in the people of this country, the sentiment which existed in almost every other country than ours, that obedience was due to the laws so long as the whip of the executioner was flourished over the head, and no longer.

Mr. BACON was in favor of the motion, because he wished, by so doing, to make way for the amendment of a gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS,) for imposing additional discriminating duties, &c. If the non-intercourse system was to be adopted, Mr. B. was also in favor of repealing the provisions of the embargo laws, and enacting others which should be more intelligible to the revenue officers, than as it would be, were it not repealed.

Mr. QUINCY advocated the motion from the total impossibility of enforcing the embargo, after the fourth of March, in some parts of the country, particularly in the district of Maine.

Mr. MACON said he cared but little about this question, for the die was cast when the House decided partially to repeal the embargo. He never had an idea, however, that the law could not be enforced; for, if it had been repealed on that

FEBRUARY, 1809.

ests.

[blocks in formation]

ground, any large State would hereafter have it our honor asleep till the 20th of May, said he, in its power to procure the repeal of any law could it not be cradled a little longer for the pubwhich it conceived to militate against its inter-lic good? Mr. K. appeared to be wholly opposed He declared that, notwithstanding all that to the non-intercourse system. had been said to the contrary, he would maintain that the embargo had never brought an evil on this country.

Mr. NICHOLAS said that if the embargo were to be repealed, in order to erect the non-intercourse system on its own basis, provisions nearly similar to those contemplated to be retained in force would be necessary. As to yielding to resistance to the laws, if it was to take place, let it come. It was time for the people to know whether they had a Government or not.

Mr. W. ALSTON observed, in the course of some observations in reply to Mr. KEY, that there were some gentlemen whom no system that ever was invented would suit. As to political doctrines, said Mr. A., God forbid that I should ever see the day when the doctrines of that gentleman will become orthodox.

The question on Mr. RANDOLPH's motion was then negatived-yeas 47, nays 75, as follows:

YEAS-Evan Alexander, Ezekiel Bacon, Joseph Barker, William W. Bibb, William Blackledge, EpaphroMr. ALEXANDER gave the reasons why he should ditus Champion, Martin Chittenden, Orchard Cook, vote in the affirmative on this motion, declaring John Culpeper, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, jr., that he was not influenced to do so by any oppo- James Elliot, William Ely, Barent Gardenier, Francis sition to the laws, in any quarter of the Union. Gardner, Jas. M. Garnett, John Harris, William Hoge, Mr. SMILIE had been in favor of the embargo, Daniel Ilsley, Richard Jackson, Robert Jenkins, James which he had considered the only means of pre- Kelly, Philip B. Key, Joseph Lewis, jr., Edward St. Loe serving us from war; and, as it was determined to Livermore, Edward Lloyd, Matthew Lyon, Josiah Masrepeal the embargo and not go to war, he was in ters, William Milnor, Jonathan O. Mosely, Josiah Quinfavor of non-intercourse; and he said that the sys-cy, John Randolph, John Rowan, John Russell, James tem of non-intercourse was not such a weak or Sloan, Samuel Smith, William Stedman, Lewis B. Sturnovel system as had been represented. He quoted ges, Benjamin Tallmadge, John Taylor, Abram Trigg, the instance in which it was adopted in the year Dyke, Archibald Van Horn, Killian K. Van RennsseJabez Upham, Philip Van Cortlandt, Nicholas Van 1775, and agreed to in 1793, though not put in laer, and David R. Williams. practice, because the President ordered a special NAYS-Lemuel J. Alston, Willis Alston, jr., David mission. Amongst the votes in favor of the Bard, Burwell Bassett, John Blake, junior, Thomas measure at that day were enrolled some of the Blount, Adam Boyd, John Boyle, Robert Brown, most respectable names to be found in American William A. Burwell, William Butler, Joseph Calhistory. What were the causes which had pro-houn, Matthew Clay, Richard Cutts, John Dawson, duced a change in the minds of members of the House, in relation to the embargo system, Mr. S. said he did not know; but certain it was, that the threats of some gentlemen from the East had influenced in bringing it about. Mr. S. censured an insinuation made by Mr. DANA a few days ago, on the subject of the relative physical strength of the North and South, as improper to be used on the floor, and unfounded in fact; for the States of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, contained a population one-seventh greater than that of all the New England States together.

Mr. RANDOLPH supported the measure on the ground that as the law now stood, compounded with the five supplementary embargo laws, it would be almost unintelligible to the revenue officers. He expatiated at some length on this point. If you will have a system of non-intercourse, said he, enact it; but let us, for God's sake, sing a requiem to the ashes of the embargo; let not our successors have to take up the doleful ditty where we left off.

Mr. KEY followed on the same side of the question. He was happy to find that the doctrine which at the commencement of the session was almost heretical, was now becoming orthodox. He was not without hopes that, if he maintained his ground, he should soon be found in the right church, preaching sound and saving doctrine. Mr. K. said that the provision of the bill by which the commencement of the non-importation was fixed for the 20th of May was evidence that it could be still further postponed. If we can rock

Josiah Deane, Joseph Desha, Daniel M. Durell, John W. Eppes, William Findley, Meshack Franklin, Thos. Gholson, jr., Peterson Goodwyn, Isaiah L. Green, John Heister, William Helms, Jas. Holland, David Holmes, Benjamin Howard, Reuben Humphreys, John G. Jackson, Richard M. Johnson, Walter Jones, Thomas Kenan, John Lambert, John Love, Nathaniel Macon, Robert Marion, William McCreery, Daniel Montgomery, jr., John Montgomery, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, John Morrow, Gurdon S. Mumford, Thomas Newbold, Thomas Newton, Wilson C. Nicholas, John Porter, John Pugh, John Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, Jacob Richards, Matthias Richards, Samuel Riker, Benjamin Say, Ebenezer Seaver, Samuel Shaw, John Smilie, Jedediah K. Smith, John Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Stanford, Clement Storer, Peter Swart, George M. Troup, James I. Van Alen, Daniel C. Verplanck, Jesse Wharton, Robert Whitehill, Isaac Wilbour, Marmaduke Williams, Alexander Wilson, and Nathan Wilson.

Mr. GHOLSON moved to strike out "the fourth

of March," the day at which the partial repeal of of June." Having before given his sentiments the embargo is to take date, and insert the "first on this subject, and so much having been said on it, Mr. G. said he would now add nothing.

The House adjourned before the question could

be taken.

WEDNESDAY, February 22.

On a motion made by Mr. HOLMES that an engrossed bill concerning invalid pensioners, which was read the third time yesterday, and ordered to

[blocks in formation]

lie on the table, be recommitted to the consideration of a Committee of the whole House, it was resolved in the affirmative, and the bill was made the order of the day for this day.

The bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act supplementary to the act, entitled 'An act to amend the charter of Georgetown," was read twice and committed to a Committee of the Whole to morrow.

The bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act making provision for the further accommodation of the household of the President of the United States," was read twice and committed to a Committee of the Whole to-morrow.

The bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act to interdict the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and their dependencies, and for other purposes," was read twice and committed to a Committee of the Whole this day.

FEBRUARY, 1809.

The unfinished business of yesterday (the nonintercourse bill of this House) was ordered to lie on the table, 64 to 35.

And the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, yeas 65, on the bill from the Senate for interdicting commercial intercourse, &c.

[ocr errors]

Mr. MASTERS moved to strike out of the 11th section, the words "and to cause to be issued un'der suitable pledges and precautions, letters of marque and reprisal against the nation thereafter continuing in force its unlawful edicts against the commerce of the United States."

Mr. MILNOR Supported the motion on the ground that the Constitution of the United States provided that Congress alone should have the power to declare war, and this bill, by giving the Presidenta discretion to judge when that war should commence, "transferred the power to him. Could it be supposed that if it was not proper now to go to war, it would be proper before the next meeting of Congress? Certainly not. And if not, should the President of the United States have the power of declaring war before that time? It was giving a pledge to one nation that if she would withdraw her decrees, we would take part with her in the war against the other, without giving the other a chance to withdraw hers, and thus prevent war; and he was, therefore, opposed to it, because it tended to promote war.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have passed a bill, entitled "An act freeing from postage all letters and packets to Thomas Jefferson;" also, a bill, entitled "An act supplementary to the act, entitled 'An act to amend the charter of Georgetown;" to which bills, respectively, they desire the concurrence of this House.

The bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act freeing from postage all letters and packets to Thomas Jefferson," was read three times and passed.

The bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act for the relief of certain Alabama Indians," together with the amendment agreed to yesterday, was read the third time, and passed.

EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC MONEYS. Mr. RANDOLPH, from the committee appointed to inquire whether any advances had been made by the War Department to the Commander-inChief, contrary to law, and to what amount, stated to the House that the committee had received from the office of the Accountant of the War Department a number of documents, which they had directed him to present to the House as their report.

The documents were read, and a motion made to print them was agreed to.

On the question how many should be printed, a desultory conversation of near three hours took place, not confined to the question before the House, but touching somewhat the subject of the legality or illegality of the advances made.

Questions were severally taken on printing 5,000, 1,200, 1,000, 900, and 600 copies, and negatived by large maiorities. The usual number were ordered to be printed.

NON-INTERCOURSE.

The bill from the Senate for interdicting commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and for other purposes, was twice read, referred to a Committee of the Whole, and made the order of the day for this day.

Mr. LIVERMORE also contended that the part proposed to be struck out was unconstitutional. The power of Congress could not be delegated to the President or any other person. They might as well delegate to the President power to make or revoke all laws. The bill did not contemplate a legislative act for issuing letters of marque or reprisal against a particular enemy, but gave a power to the President to choose with which of the belligerents he would take sides and against which he would declare war. If the nation was in favor of war, this was not the proper way to make it. He conceived that if they passed this bill their constituents would tell them that they were traitors to the Constitution; that they had betrayed the trust reposed in them. There was a time when he should have been astonished to see such a bill as this come from the Senate; but the age of miracles was not passed. He should scarcely now be surprised at anything which could be proposed. Its passage would be a precedent which would redound to the everlasting disgrace of the Congress of the United States. He said also that it was a clause which he conceived would shake the Government of the United States to its foundation. He only considered it in a Constitutional point of view; as to its inexpediency, that was a minor consideration when put in competition with its unconstitutionality.

Mr. LYON followed on the same side and on the same grounds as Messrs. MILNOR and LIVERMORE. He believed that the people did not wish for war. No men wished for it but those who wished offices or some other benefit from it. He wished the nation to be permitted to grow. He knew of no mode by which this nation could more effectually be plunged into war with Great

[blocks in formation]

Britain and alliance with France, than by this provision of the bill. Although Mr. L. did not like the embargo, because he considered it ruinous to the people, he would rather continue it for seven years than to plunge into war.

H. OF R.

and to confirm the claims of Abraham Ellis and Daniel Harregal."

INVALID PENSIONERS.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on an engrossed bill concerning invalid pensioners; and, after some time spent therein, the Committee rose and reported an amendment thereto. The House then proceeded to consider the bill: Whereupon, the amendment reported thereto from the Committee of the Whole House, to strike out the fourth section, in the words following, to wit:

Mr. HOLLAND spoke in reply to the preceding gentleman. He was astonished that gentlemen should declare every proposition the worst that ever was made. A short time ago gentlemen would rather have war than the embargo. But this bill neither was a declaration of war, nor a discretion to the President to make it. It authorized the President, at the moment of one of those Powers withdrawing its orders or decrees, to "SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That every issue letters of marque and reprisal. It conferred person who has been or shall be admitted to a pension no legislative power on the Executive. The under the provision of the aforesaid act of the tenth of event was fixed on the happening of which being April, one thousand eight hundred and six, shall be enmade known to the President, he should forth-titled to receive a sum equal to the aggregate amount with issue letters of marque and reprisal. The bill obviated the great objection which had been made to war, viz: that it must be a war against two nations. Now this bill gave choice to those nations which would make herself our enemy; and it would be equally the interest of both to withdraw its decrees or orders, and place the United States at war with the other. He had no idea of consulting the interests of those nations more than our own; and if it was ascertained that those nations were determined to continue their orders and decrees, no gentleman in the House would say that this nation should not resist them, except perhaps the gentleman from New York (Mr. GARDENIER) or the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. LYON.)

The Committee then rose, and on the question that it have leave to sit again, it was, after debate, granted.

THURSDAY, February 23.

list"

of such pension, calculated from the time when the disability, in consequence of which it was granted, was incurred, to the time of his admission on the pension being twice read at the Clerk's table, the question was taken that the House do concur with the Committee of the whole House in their agreement to the said amendment, and passed in the negative-yeas 48, nays 50, as follows:

YEAS-Willis Alston, jr., David Bard, Joseph Barker, John Blake, jr., Adam Boyd, John Boyle, WilThomas Gholson, jr., Peterson Goodwyn, Isaiah L. liam Butler, John Davenport, jr., Meshack Franklin, Green, John Harris, John Heister, William Helms, James Holland, David Holmes, Reuben Humphreys, Daniel Ilsley, John Lambert, Nathaniel Macon, Robert Marion, Josiah Masters, William McCreery, Daniel Montgomery, jr., Jeremiah Morrow, John Morrow, Thomas Newbold, John Rhea of Tennessee, Jacob Richards, Matthias Richards, Benjamin Say, Ebenezer Seaver, Samuel Shaw, James Sloan, John Smilie, Richard Stanford, Clement Storer, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, John Taylor, Abram Trigg,

A motion was made by Mr. RHEA, of Tennes-George M. Troup, Daniel C. Verplanck, Jesse Wharsee, that the House do come to the following resolution:

Resolved, That an order of this House of the 18th instant, directing "that, until the end of the present session, the daily hour of meeting shall be ten o'clock, and should a quorum not appear, the names of the members shall be called, and those present noted in the Journal of each day," be rescinded.

The resolution was read and ordered to lie on

ton, Robert Whitehill, David R. Williams, and Alexander Wilson.

NAYS-Evan Alexander, Lemuel J. Alston, Ezekiel Bacon, William W. Bibb, William Blackledge, Thos. Blount, Joseph Calhoun, Epaphroditus Champion, Martin Chittenden, John Culpeper, Josiah Deane, James Elliot, William Ely, William Findley, James Fisk, Francis Gardner, James M. Garnett, William Jenkins, James Kelly, Joseph Lewis, jr., Edward Hoge, Benjamin Howard, Richard Jackson, Robert Lloyd, John Love, Matthew Lyon, William Milnor, The House proceeded to consider the amend- John Montgomery, Nicholas R. Moore, Jonathan O. ments proposed by the Senate to the bill, entitled Mosely, Gurdon S. Mumford, Thomas Newton, Wil"An act for the disposal of certain tracts of land son C. Nicholas, Josiah Quincy, John Randolph, Samin the Mississippi Territory, claimed under Span-uel Riker, Jedediah K. Smith, John Smith, Samuel ish grants reported by the Land Commissioners as antedated, and for other purposes:" Where

the table.

[blocks in formation]

Smith, William Stedman, Lewis B. Sturges, Peter
Swart, Jabez Upham, James I. Van Alen, Philip Van
Cortlandt, Nicholas Van Dyke, Archibald Van Horn,
Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Marmaduke Williams, and
Nathan Wilson.

The bill was then read the third time: Whereupon, a motion was made by Mr. HOLLAND, that the bill be recommitted to the consideration of a Committee of the whole House: and the question being put thereupon, it was resolved in the affirmative.

« PreviousContinue »