But, sir, I am willing to accelerate this great work to the utmost practicable point. IfI am not wholly mistaken in the condition of things in Europe, a great struggle is coming on between the northern Powers; the colossal power of Russia, directed, in great degree, by the allpervading genius of Metternich, on the one side, France and England on the other-a struggle, sir, between the principles of despotism and the cause of constitutional representative government. Such a contest must shake the civilized world to its deepest foundations. Either for the magnitude of the Powers engaged, or the importance of the issue, the world has heretofore seen nothing like it; no, sir, not even in the wars of the first fifteen years of the present century, when that man of destiny literally "stormed across the war-convulsed earth." This, I rather think, has been the true reason for the wise interposition of England in our controversy with France. In such a contest, where the cause of free government and of human liberty is at stake, we can scarcely desire to be neutral; we cannot be, if we do desire it, unless prepared to maintain an armed neutrality-armed, sir, to the teeth. If there are any who think, by these and such appropriations, to dispose of the surplus, I have only to say that, if practicable, it would be unjust in the extreme, especially to the West, to draw such vast revenues from one section, and expend them on another. But, sir, it is impracticable, to the point of absurdity. The surplus in the Treasury, by the last advices from the Treasury, independent of bank stock, is nearly twenty-eight millions; to which add the United States Bank stock, and you have thirty-five millions. I say by the last advices from the Treasury, for one hardly has time to make calculations on the basis of one report, before another comes upon us, correcting some error; and I doubt not that, in less than a month, this last report will be followed by another, making some corections, either in the esti mates or the "ciphering." With this 35 millions to begin with, and a revenue of at least thirty-five or forty millions next year, you will not only not be able to expend it, but it will continue to accumulate on your hands. Sir, it is miserable quackery, and, like all quackery, will not only not cure the disease, but ruin the system. I feel as deeply as any one can the portentous danger of further accumulation, and regard it as the very first duty of patriotism to devise some plan of disposing of the surplus. I feel, sir, that we are reposing under an avalanche, which a breath may precipitate upon us. Roman liberty first began to give way on the accumulation of corn in the public granaries. British liberty perished by the corrupting influence of public patronage, in the time of Sir R. Walpole. Even Lord Chatham, one of the greatest men in the tide of time, was scarcely able to galvanize it. I will go with any party which will devise any feasible plan of ridding us of this threatening evil; one which I contemplate with absolute dismay. Mr. Chairman, there are practicable plans of disposing of the surplus, if gentlemen will conquer all their personal and party prejudices, and pass the land bill, and the constitutional amendment for the distribution of the surplus revenue. These are, in my judgment, the only practicable projects; and I rejoice in my heart that they come from those two great minds, which have for the last twenty-five years so gloriously illustrated the history of their country. In the present as in every past crisis of danger and difficulty, the war, the Missouri [MARCH 3, 1836. question, the compromise, two commanding figures have been seen above the horizon, with the eyes of their countrymen intently fixed upon them, with a well-placed confidence which has never been disappointed. These men are out of power, or my voice should not be heard here in their eulogy. Sir, the expunging process must be carried very far; you must expunge the history of your country for a quarter of a century; you must tear from that history its brightest pages; ay, sir, and you must expunge from the human heart every virtuous and honorable sentiment, homage for genius, gratitude for public services, before their well-earned laurels can be torn from their brows. They will have added another to their many claims upon the gratitude of posterity, if they can succeed in relieving the country from the great danger of an overflowing Treasury, a difficulty for the first time known in the history of the world. Before Mr. THOMPSON had concluded his speech, (the whole of which is given above,) he gave way to a motion for the committee to rise. The committee then rose, and the House adjourned. THURSDAY, MARCH 3. OHIO BOUNDARY LINE. Mr. THOMAS, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported a resolution providing that the bill to establish the northern boundary line of the State of Ohio, and to provide for the admission of the State of Michigan into the Union on certain conditions, be made the special order of the day for the 15th of the present month. Mr. BELL moved the same amendment moved by him to the resolution reported this morning, from the Committee on Territories, viz: Provided, That before that time the several appropriation bills should be disposed of by the House. The amendment was agreed to. And on the resolution, as amended, Mr. THOMAS asked for the yeas and nays; which were ordered. Mr. MERCER inquired of the Chair if the motion required a majority of two-thirds for its adoption? The CHAIR replied, that, inasmuch as its object was to change the order of business, and consequently the rules of the House, so far as that order was concerned, it would require a majority of two-thirds. The resolution, as amended, was rejected: Yeas 124, nays 79; not being two-thirds in the affirmative. YEAS-Messrs. Adams, Ash, Ashley, Banks, Barton, Bean, Beardsley, Bockee, Bond, Borden, Bovee, Buchanan, Bunch, Cambreleng, Carr, George Chambers, Chaney, Chapin, Coffee, Coles, Corwin, Craig, Cramer, Crane, Cushing, Cushman, Darlington, Davis, Denny, Dickerson, Doubleday, Fairfield, Farlin, French, Fry, William K. Fuller, Galbraith, James Garland, Gillet, Glascock, Granger, Hiland Hall, Hamer, Hannegan, Samuel S. Harrison, Albert G. Harrison, Hawkins, Haynes, Hiester, Holsey, Hopkins, Howard, Howell, Hubley, Hunt, Huntington, Huntsman, Jabez Jackson, Janes, Joseph Johnson, Richard M. Johnson, Cave Johnson, John W. Jones, B. Jones, Kilgore, Kinnard, Klingensmith, Lane, Lansing, Lawler, Joshua Lee, Thomas Lee, Leonard, Logan, Loyall, Job Mann, Martin, John Y. Mason, William Mason, Moses Mason, Samson Mason, May, McCarty, McKennan, McKeon, McKim, McLene, Montgomery, Moore, Morgan, Muhlenberg, Owens, Page, Patterson, Dutee J. Pearce, James. A. Pearce, Peyton, Joseph Reynolds, Roane, Robertson, Schenck, Seymour, Shields, Shinn, Sickles, Slade, Sloane, Smith, Spangler, Steele, Storer, Sutherland, Taylor, Thomas, John Thomson, Toucey, Towns, Turner, Vanderpoel, Vinton, Ward, Wardwell, Weeks, Whittlesey-124. MARCH 4, 1836.] Naval Service-Convention with Spain, &c. NAYS-Messrs. Heman Allen, Beaumont, Bell, Bouldin, Boyd, Briggs, Brown, Bynum, J. Calhoon, William B. Calhoun, Campbell, Carter, Casey, John Chambers, Chapman, Nathaniel H. Claiborne, Clark, Connor, Deberry, Dickson, Dromgoole, Evans, Everett, Forester, Philo C. Fuller, Rice Garland, Graham, Grantland, Graves, Grayson, Grennell, Griffin, Haley, Hardin, Harlan, Harper, Hazeltine, Henderson, Hoar, Ingersoll, William Jackson, Jarvis, Jenifer, Henry Johnson, Judson, Lawrence, Lay, Luke Lea, Lincoln, Love, Lyon, Abijah Mann, Maury, McComas, McKay, Mercer, Miller, Milligan, Morris, Parker, Parks, Patton, Phelps, Phillips, Pickens, Potts, Reed, Rencher, John Reynolds, Russell, Augustine H. Shepperd, Standefer, Taliaferro, Waddy Thompson, Turrill, Underwood, White, Lewis Williams, Sherrod Williams-79. NAVAL SERVICE. On motion of Mr. CAMBRELENG, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, Mr. MILLER in the chair. The consideration of the bill making appropriations for the naval service of the United States for the year 1836 was resumed by the committee. [H. OF R. On motion of Mr. BRIGGS, the committee then rose, and reported the foregoing bills to the House, with the exception of the naval service bill, on which the committee had leave to sit again. The two bills reported without amendment were read a third time and passed. The amendment to the bill to carry into effect the convention with Spain was concurred in by the House, and the bill ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. The House then adjourned. FRIDAY, MARCH 4. MILITARY ACADEMY. Mr. HANNEGAN rose and remarked that he had seen with regret a settled determination on the part of the majority of the House to resist any attempt to expose the abuses of the Military Academy at West Point. He warned the House that they could not smother the truth, and that, one way or another, the facts should be made known. Chair and by several members; and he moved a suspenHere Mr. H. was loudly called to order, both by the sion of the rules for the purpose of offering the follow The question being on the motion of Mr. BELL to reduce the appropriation for the navy yard at Portsmouth, Newing resolution, which was read for information: Hampshire, from $65,000 to $35,500. Mr. THOMPSON, of South Carolina, resumed and concluded his remarks on the subject, as given entire in preceding pages. Mr. EVANS expressed his intention to address the committee on the subject, and, as the hour was late, moved that the committee rise. M. E. yielded the floor to Mr. CAMBRELENG, on whose motion the committee took up for consideration The bill making appropriations for the payment of revolutionary and other pensioners of the United States for the year 1836; And the bill to repeal so much of the act entitled "An act transferring the duties of Commissioner of Loans," as requires the Bank of the United States to perform the duties of commissioner of loans for the several States. CONVENTION WITH SPAIN. On motion of Mr. MASON, of Virginia, the committee took up the bill to carry into effect the convention with Spain. Mr. M., by order of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, moved a substitute for the above bill, the object of which motion he explained. Resolved, That the report of the select committee appointed during the last Congress to investigate the affairs of the West Point Military Academy be withdrawn from the files, and that ten thousand copies thereof be printed. Mr. H. again rose, and was again called to order. He said it was easy to teach a starling to cry order, but he desired to have the yeas and nays; which motion he hoped was in order. The yeas and nays were accordingly ordered. Mr. BROWN begged leave to make an inquiry of the Chair, The CHAIR informed the gentleman the question was not debatable. Mr. BROWN said he did not desire to discuss the question; he only wished to know whether the report of the select committee, to which the resolution referred, had ever been received by the House? The CHAIR replied that he could not answer the question. It was a report made by a committee at the last Congress. Mr. WHITTLESEY inquired if the motion was intended to suspend the rules generally, so as to set aside the ordinary business of the day? Mr. HANNEGAN explained, that his motion contemAfter some remarks from Mr. J. Q. ADAMS, express-plated only an application to the morning hour. ing his preference of the substitute to the original bill, Mr. CUSHING said that he desired to avail himself of this occasion to express his strong sense of the justice and honor exhibited by the Government of Spain, in the treaty of which this bill was the consummation. In the midst of national calamities, which she met with her characteristic fortitude, with a deadly civil war raging in her bosom, and weighed down with financial embarrassments, Spain has acknowledged and satisfied the claims of our citizens, in a spirit of manly promptitude and frankness, strikingly contrasted with the conduct of some other European Powers in a similar matter. This procedure on the part of that gallant and highminded nation did honor to the liberal policy which actuates her present rulers. And associated as Spain and the United States are by the ties of a close intercourse, reciprocally beneficial to both, Mr. C. said he felt that it was the duty of the American Congress, in passing this bill, to bear emphatic testimony to the integrity and dignified sentiment of self-respect manifested in this affair by the Queen Regent of Spain. The amendment was then agreed to. The question was then taken, and decided as follows: Yeas 112, nays 83: YEAS--Messrs. Adams, Ash, Bailey, Barton, Bean, Bell, Bockee, Bond, Bovee, Boyd, Buchanan, Bunch, John Calhoon, Cambreleng, Carr, Carter, Casey, John Chambers, Chaney, Chapin, Nathaniel H. Claiborne, Connor, Crane, Cushing, Cushman, Darlington, Davis, Deberry, Dickson, Doubleday, Dunlap, Efner, Fairfield, Farlin, Forester, French, Fry, Galbraith, James Garland, Gillet, Granger, Grantland, Grayson, Grennell, Griffin, Haley, Hammer, Hannegan, Samuel S. Harrison, Albert G. Harrison, Hawkins, Haynes, Holsey, Hubley, Hunt, Huntington, Ingham, William Jackson, Jabez Jackson, Jenifer, Cave Johnson, Benjamin Jones, Kinnard, Klingensmith, Lawler, J. Lee, Thomas Lee, Luke Lea, Logan, Abijah Mann, Job Mann, Martin, J. Y. Mason, W. Mason, M. Mason, S. Mason, Maury, May, McKay, McKennan, McKeon, McKim, McLene, Miller, Montgomery, Moore, Morgan, Muhlenberg, Parker, Parks, Patterson, Phelps, Potts, Rencher, John Reynolds, Robertson, Schenck, A. H. Shepperd, Shields, Shinn, Sickles, Sloane, Smith, Spangler, Standefer, Storer, John Thomson, Toucey, Turner, Wardwell, NAYS-Messrs. Chilton Allan, Heman Allen, Ashley, So the House refused to suspend the rules, two-thirds not voting in the affirmative. CONTESTED ELECTION. The House proceeded to the consideration of the report of the Committee of Elections, in the case of the North Carolina contested election. Mr. HARD, on a former day, made a motion, (which was modified on the suggestion of Mr. MANN, of New York,) that the petitioner, David Newland, have leave to appear, and also to address the House on the subject of his petition. The question pending was the amendment proposed by Mr. BYNUM, that the petitioner be permitted to appear by himself or by counsel. | [MARCH 4, 1836. in the case of contested elections. Mr. B. thought it He Mr. MERCER did not rise to discuss the subject, but merely to state, in reply to the gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. BYNUM,] that counsel had not been admitted in such cases into the British Parliament since the passage of the Grenville act. Mr. BYNUM said, when he made the motion, he had done so because he understood, in private conversation, that the petitioner wished counsel; and, also, in accord- Mr. REED said he believed that counsel had not been ance with the views expressed by the majority of the admit'ed into Congress in the case of a contested elecCommittee of Elections. His colleague [Mr. CONNOR] tion for thirty years past. At the commencement of the had stated that he was authorized by the petitioner to Government, when the House was small, counsel had say that he did not wish counsel. Mr. B. had since had been admitted; but time had become so precious of late a conversation with the petitioner, and with his colleague, years that they were not admitted. If they were to adand had ascertained that the petitioner had made such mit counsel, there ought to be good reason for it, and a declaration; but the reason why he had done so was, he did not think there was good reason for such admisthat at that time the petitioner was unconscious that sion on the present occasion. The matter had been besuch a request had ever been asked by any petitioner fore a committee of nine members, whose duty it was to of the House of Representatives, and he was unwilling examine into all constitutional and legal questions in reto ask any thing that had not been granted to others un- lation thereto. They had, after examining the question, der similar circumstances. Upon mature reflection, and hearing all the testimony from the respective parties however, the petitioner had stated to Mr. B. that he for the last three months, made two reports to the would ask for counsel; ascertaining that it had been the House. After that, was the examination to stop? No; uniform practice of the House to hear petitioners in it would be still further examined, and there were enough such cases by counsel, and that that privilege had been of members to discuss the subject. There was no diffiin no one instance denied when asked. Mr. B. said, in culty in finding a sufficiency of speakers. There were reciting the case he had the other day of a contested many lawyers on the floor, competent and willing to diselection from New Jersey in 1789, he had shown that it cuss any legal matters which might come before them; was the opinion of Mr. Madison, Mr. Stone, and various but he found other gentlemen, who were not lawyers, others, that the petitioner in such cases should have competent to discuss the present question, and to discuss counsel. It appeared to be admitted by all parties that it ably, too; and therefore he could not see the necessity the petitioner should be heard by counsel on the main of introducing lawyers to argue the case, and consume question, but it was doubted by some whether he should the time of the House. They might as well ask to have be heard on the preliminary question. He had un- lawyers to come into the House to advocate the cause of derstood it to be the almost invariable practice in the the sufferers by the late fire in New York. Those sufBritish Parliament, to grant petitioners in such cases a ferers certainly were as much in need of counsel as the hearing by counsel. He had found other cases in our petitioners. But his principal objection was to the time own country than those already mentioned, and in one of that would be wasted; if a lawyer was to be heard, he those cases the sitting member had been allowed coun- would take two days in making an argument. If the sel; and he had not discovered a single case where coun gentleman was not capable of advocating his claim to his sel had been refused. He took the liberty of dissenting seat, he would find plenty of friends in the House who from the broad ground taken by the gentleman from would do it for him; and he ventured that no member Kentucky, [Mr. HARDIN.] That gentleman had stated would express an opinion which would make him incapathat he thought it would be highly impolitic to admit ble of acting afterwards as a judge in the case. He ob. lawyers on that floor to argue the cases of petitioners,jected to it from want of time, and that it might be the means of introducing lawyers on the floor on other subjects. Mr. HARD expressed a hope that the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. BYNUM] would withdraw his amendment, and permit the petitioner to take his seat until this preliminary question was settled. He could not but think that the debate had taken a wide and unnecessary range at this stage. Mr. GLASCOCK would be very unwilling himself to adopt, under any circumstances, the amendment proposed by the gentleman from North Carolina, that counsel should be allowed, even if he could bring himself for a moment to believe that there was any necessity for it. Independent of this, he believed that, unless where there was an absolute necessity, the precedent was a dangerous and bad one. But why should the petitioner wish for counsel, when the report of the committee was in his favor? Mr. G. did not look upon the question as a mere legal one, or as involving only a legal question. It was true, that it depended in a great measure upon the law of North Carolina, regulating the proceedings of elections in that State; but the whole testimony was now introduced, and could it for a moment be presumed that individual members of the House were not fully qualified to decide upon that evidence? Where, then, could ex ist the necessity for the employment of counsel, if there be no difficult points involved? Or even if there were difficult points involved, it appeared to him that it was both prudent and proper for the House to decide for itself, without the interference of counsel. He could not believe that any difficulties could arise in the discussion of this question, nor could he be induced to believe that any individual member of the House would undertake to decide a question of such importance without making himself perfectly qualified to do so, by fully informing himself of all the facts upon which he would have to vote. He would venture to assert that no individual member on that floor would vote upon this question without reading all the evidence, and without listening to all the arguments that might be advanced by gentlemen on both sides of the question. Independent of this, Mr. G. must be permitted to observe that wherever counsel was employed for a specific purpose, for the purpose of advocating the particular cause of a particular individual, he was expected, from the very nature of his station, from the duty a counsel owed to his client, to bring forward the strong points only, those calculated to operate exclusively for the ben efit of the individual he represented, and not to touch upon those that would go to sustain the other side. It did appear to Mr. G., then, that, taking a general view of the subject, both as to policy and precedent, believing that House competent to investigate for itself this question, there was no propriety on the present occasion of allowing counsel to the petitioner. He was opposed to the motion upon general principles, and he concurred with the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. REED,] that this principle once adopted, would have to be carried out on all subjects involving a legal point which might come up there for discussion. It was wrong, it was improper, and he could never consent to it. Mr. WHITTLESEY here called for the orders of the day. Mr. BOYD moved to suspend the orders of the day, for the purpose of proceeding with the consideration of this subject. Mr. BYNUM wished to move simply to proceed with the discussion, as he conceived that motion required only a bare majority. The CHAIR decided that that motion would require two-thirds, consistent with the precedents that had been long established by the House, and decided upon at least twenty times. The effect of the motion was to sus [H. OF R. pend the rules of the House, so far as private business was concerned. Mr. BOYD then modified his motion, by moving that the House proceed with the consideration of the report from the Committee of Elections. The motion was decided as follows: Ayes 87, noes 83; whereupon, The CHAIR decided that, in conformity with what he understood to be the declared sense of the House, by long-established precedents, the motion was not agreed to, because it required a majority of two-thirds. Mr. BYNUM then took an appeal from the decision of the Chair, on the ground that a bare majority was sufficient to proceed with the business under consideration, and that Friday and Saturday were not so absolutely set apart for the consideration of private business as to make that subject the special order of those days. The 19th rule is as follows: "Friday and Saturday in every week shall be set apart for the consideration of private bills and private business, in preference to any other, unless otherwise determined by a majority of the House;" and the point was, whether it required a bare "majority," or a "majority" of twothirds. The decision of the Chair, and former precedents for more than six years, were in favor of the latter. Mr. CUSHING said that a statement of the question, and of two or three considerations applicable to it, would explain the grounds on which he should vote. There is a rule of the House which provides that the two last days of the week shall be appropriated to the despatch of private business, unless a majority of the House shall otherwise order. Another and a subsequent rule provides that the order of business shall not be changed without a vote of two-thirds of the House. The question is: What is the construction of these two rules, collated together? Mr. C. said it seems to be admitted, in the first place, that in point of fact the second of these rules was introduced and established for the express purpose of controlling or explaining the first, and of meeting the very case under debate. Secondly, that it had been the uniform and settled practice of the House to apply the rule of two-thirds to this case; and, in the absence of any thing written, such a practice constituted a rule. And, in his judgment, the original design of the rule, and the current of decisions under it, were sound and right upon principle. It was the general doctrine, to suspend the rules and change the stated order of business for a temporary object, only by a vote of two-thirds, because otherwise the business of the House would be subject to the fluctuating will and unstable impulses of a bare majority, acting under the hasty impressions of the moment. And it would be particularly wrong thus to set afloat the immense mass of the claims of private individuals, who, as it is, labored under such intolerable difficulties in pursuing a demand against the United States. The point of order was debated at some length, and the decision of the Chair was sustained by Messrs.; MERCER, BRIGGS, WILLIAMS of Kentucky, WHITTLESEY, SUTHERLAND, and EVERETT, and opposed by Messrs. BYNUM, BEARDSLEY, HARPER, VINTON, MANN of New York, BELL, VANDERPOEL, and TOUCEY. Mr. HAMER demanded the previous question; which was seconded: Ayes 108, noes not counted; and the main question was ordered to be put without a count. The main question was, "Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?" and thereon Mr. MANN, of New York, asked for the yeas and nays; which were ordered; and the question being taken, was decided in the affirmative: Yeas 132,nays 61, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Adams, Chilton Allan, Ash, Bailey, Banks, Beaumont, Bell, Bockee, Boon, Borden, Briggs, Buchanan, Bunch, John Calhoon, William, B Calhoun, H. OF R.] Ohio Boundary Line-Contested Election. Campbell, Carr, Carter, Casey, George Chambers, John Chambers, Chaney, Nathaniel H. Claiborne, Cleveland, Coffee, Coles, Corwin, Crane, Cushing, Darlington, Deberry, Denny, Dickerson, Doubleday, Dunlap, Efner, Everett, Fairfield, French, Fry, Philo C. Fuller, Galbraith, James Garland, Rice Garland, Glascock, Granger, Grennell, Griffin, Haley, Hiland Hall, Hamer, Hard, Harlan, Samuel S. Harrison, Hawkins, Hazeltine, Hiester, Howell, Hubley, Huntington, Huntsman, Ing, ham, William Jackson, Jabez Jackson, Janes, Jenifer, Joseph Johnson, Henry Johnson, John W. Jones, Judson, Kennon, Kilgore, Kinnard, Lane, Lansing, Lawler, Lawrence, Lay, Joshua Lee, Thomas Lee, Luke Lee, Lincoln, Logan, Lyon, Job Mann, Martin, John Y. Mason, Moses Mason, Maury, May, McCarty, Mc Kennan, Mercer, Miller, Milligan, Montgomery, Moore, Morgan, Morris, Dutee J. Pearce, James A. Pearce, Phelps, Phillips, Pickens, Potts, Reed, Rencher, John Reynolds, Roane, Russell, William B. Shepard, A. H. Shepperd, Shields, Sickles, Slade, Spangler, Standefer, Steele, Storer, Sutherland, Taliaferro, Taylor, Thomas, John Thomson, Turner, Turrill, Ward, Wardell, White, Whittlesey, Lewis Williams, Sherrod Williams-132. NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Barton, Bean, Beardsley, Bond, Bovee, Boyd, Brown, Bynum, Cambreleng, Chapin, Connor, Craig, Cramer, Cushman, Davis, Dickson, Farlin, William K. Fuller, Gillet, Grantland, Graves, Grayson, Joseph Hall, Hannegan, Harper, Albert G. Harrison, Haynes, Holsey, Hopkins, Ingersoll, Jarvis, Richard M. Johnson, Cave Johnson, Gideon Lee, Leonard, Abijah Mann, William Mason, Samson Mason, McComas, McKay, McKeon, McKim, McLene, Mul lenberg, Owens, Page, Parker, Patterson, Joseph Reynolds, Ripley, Robertson, Rogers, Schenck, Smith, Toucey, Underwood, Vanderpoel, Vinton, Webster, Weeks-61. So the House determined that the decision of the Chair should stand ss the judgment of the House. The House then proceeded to the orders of the day and took up several engrossed bills; which were read a third time and passed; and then The house adjourned. SATURDAY, MARCH 5. OHIO BOUNDARY LINE. The motion heretofore submitted by Mr. HAMER, to print 10,000 extra copies of the report and bill fixing the northern boundary of the State of Ohio, and providing for the admission of Michigan into the Union, was taken up. Mr. HAMER modified his resolution, by proposing to print the usual number of copies of the brief on the same subject, presented on behalf of the Ohio delegation. Mr. VINTON suggested that the papers referred to in the brief be also printed. Mr. HAMER acquiesced in the suggestion, and modified his motion accordingly. Mr. RENCHER had no objection to printing an extra number of the report and bill, but the number proposed he believed to be too large. He therefore moved to amend the proposition by substituting 5,000 for 10,000 copies; which was agreed to. Mr. BEARDSLEY suggested that the brief presented on behalf of Michigan, and the papers therein referred to, should also be printed. Mr. HAMER had no objection, and further modified his resolution, in accordance with the suggestion of the gentleman from New York. Some conversation took place between Messrs. MANN of New York, HAMER, PARKER, THOMAS, and GRENNELL, as to the character and extent of the briefs, [MARCH 5, 1836. and the papers therein referred to, when the resolution was further amended by excepting such papers as had been previously directed to be appended to the report of the Committee on the Judiciary; and, thus amended, it was agreed to. CONTESTED ELECTION. The House then resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee of Elections on the contested election from one of the districts of North Carolina. The question pending was the amendment proposed by Mr. BYNUM, that the petitioner be permitted to appear by himself or by counsel. Mr. GRIFFIN called for the yeas and nays; which were ordered. Mr. RENCHER wished to state one fact, which ought to induce the House to grant counsel, and that was, that the petitioner had the benefit of counsel before the committee; and he could see no good reason why he should not be entitled to the same benefit on the floor of the House. He would vote for the motion that the petitioner be allowed counsel, because he had asked for it; and he would have granted the sitting member counsel if he had desired it. He agreed with his colleague, [Mr. BYNUM,] that it more became them to listen to the arguments of others than to engage in it themselves. The question was then put on the motion that the petitioner be permitted to appear by counsel, and decided in the negative: Yeas 67, nays 112, as follows: YEAS--Messrs. Barton, Bean, Boon, Bouldin, Bovee, Boyd, Brown, Buchanan, Bynum, Chapman, Nathaniel H. Claiborne, Cleveland, Connor, Corwin, Craig, Crane, Davis, Denny, Dickerson, Dickson, Farlin, French, William K. Fuller, Galbraith, Joseph Hall, Hannegan, Harper, Albert G. Harrison, Hawkins, Haynes, Holsey, Hopkins, Howard, Hubley, Huntington, Jabez Jackson, Cave Johnson, Kennon, Kilgore, Lansing, Thomas Lee, Job Mann, William Mason, McKay, McKim, Mercer, Montgomery, Morgan, Muhlenberg, Page, Patterson, Phelps, Rencher, John Reynolds, Joseph Reynolds, Roane, Schenck, Augustine H. Shepperd, Shinn, Sutherland, Thomas, John Thomson, Turner, Vanderpoel, Ward, Wardwell, Weeks--67. NAYS--Messrs. Chilton Allan, Anthony, Ash, Banks, Beaumont, Bell, Bockee, Bond, Borden, Briggs, Bunch, John Calhoon, William B. Calhoun, Cambreleng, Campbell, Carr, Carter, Casey, George Chan.bers, Jol.n Chambers, Childs, Coffee, Coles, Cushman, Deberry, Doubleday, Dromgoole, Dunlap, Efner, Evans, Everett, Fairfield, Forester, Fry, Philo C. Fuller, James Garland, Gillet, Glascock, Granger, Grantland, Graves, Grayson, Grennell, Griffin, Haley, Hiland Hall, Hard, Hardin, Harlan, Samuel S. Harrison, Hazeltine, Henderson, Hiester, Hoar, Howell, Hunt, Huntsman, Ingersoll, Ingham, Willam Jackson, Janes, Jarvis, Jenifer, Joseph Johnson, Henry Johnson, Jolin W. Jones, Benjamin Jones, Kinnard, Lane, Lawler, Lawrence, Lay, Gideon Lee, Luke Lea, Leonard, Lincoln, Logan, Loyall, Abijah Mann, Martin, Moses Mason, Samson Mason, Maury, McCarty, McComas, McKeon, McLene, Miller, Morris, Owens, Parker, Parks, Patton, Phillips, Potts, Reed, Robertson, Rogers, Russell, Shields, Sickles, Smith, Spangler, Stande fer, Storer, Taliaferro, Taylor, Towns, Underwood, Webster, Whittlesey, Sherrod Williams-112. Mr. BYNUM said he was in hopes that, since the House had, by the vote which it had just given, refused the petitioner leave to be heard by counsel, it would act its principle out, and reject the motion offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. HARD] to allow the petitioner the privilege to appear at the bar of the House, and to speak in his own defence, as it was a request that the petitioner had not made. The vote which had just been taken was one to which |