Mr. LINCOLN said this resolution involved grave considerations, and should have had the most serious attention of a committee, instead of being brought thus hastily and secretly before the House. Mr. L. was proceeding in his remarks, when Mr. CAMBRELENG called for the orders of the day. MEMORIAL OF THE U. S. BANK. Mr. INGERSOLL rose and stated that he learned from the Speaker that he had in his possession a memo. rial from the president, directors, and company of the Bank of the United States, which might obviate the necessity, in the mind of every gentleman, of further proceedings upon the resolution offered from the select committee. He therefore asked leave of the House for the Speaker to present the memorial, and requested the Speaker to do so. Leave being granted, the Speaker presented the following memorial; which was read: To the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress assembled: The memorial of the president, directors, and company of the Bank of the United States, respectfully represents: That having recently seen, among the documents printed by Congress, a report of the Secretary of the Treasury, in which he laments that he has not been able to settle with the bank, and invokes the aid of Congress, they deem it proper to state that they are now, as they always have been, ready and anxious to settle; and that not the slightest delay, nor the least obstacle of any kind, can justly be ascribed to them. This they propose to render obvious in a few words. In a settlement between the Government and the bank, one of two courses was necessary. The first was to wind up the whole business of the institution, and divide the proceeds; a mode inevitable, had the bank ceased its operations on the 4th of March. But, as the institution continued, with no change except the retirement of a single partner, it was deemed a process equally harsh and useless to force the country to pay sixty millions of debts at a moment of general embarrassment, merely to balance the books of the bank; and the second mode was therefore preferred-that of estimating the value of the stock on the 4th of March, and paying the Government its proportion. This was the easiest, and simplest, and fairest mode of adjustment. It was obviously the mode contemplated by Congress, who, on the 23d of June, 1836, authorized the Secre tary of the Treasury to receive payment "in such instalments, and payable at such times, and with such rates of interest, as he shall see fit to agree to." To estimate the value of the stock was, therefore, the first step towards the settlement. Accordingly, soon after the Secretary received his authority from Congress, a report was made by a joint committee of three members of the late bank, three of the new, and three impartial umpires, connected with neither, stating the value of the stock. valuation on the part of the bank was transmitted to the Secretary, with an offer "that all the materials upon which it is founded will, of course, be submitted to any examination which you may desire to make;" and that the bank "would be equally ready to adopt any mode which may be deemed expedient for making such a division of the assets of the bank as may assure to the Government its just and ample proportion." To this communication the Secretary answered on the 19th and 20th September, as follows: "I have cheerfully acceptyour offer to permit an examination to be made of ne materials upon which that report is founded;" and will appoint three gentlemen "to investigate those materials, and report to me their views upon them, and also the proper basis of a settlement." These commissioners accordingly visited the bank, and, after nearly four This [FEB. 25, 1837. months, reported. It was naturally presumed that, when they made their report, the Secretary would inform the board of directors whether their valuation accorded with that of the bank, or in what respect it dif fered, so as to enable the board to accept the terms or to offer others, or in some mode advance the settlement. It is much to be regretted that such a course was not pursued. But, since the month of September, when the Secretary apprized the board of the coming of the commissioners, who were to report their estimate to him, no communication of any kind whatsoever was made to them by the Secretary; but while they were waiting to know whether their valuation was acceptable to him, or in what it was deemed deficient, they were surprised by a communication, not to them, but to Congress, stating the failure of his negotiation. They regret this, because, if the board had been made acquainted with the wishes of the Government, as explained in the report now made to Congress, they would have instantly and cheerfully acceded to them. That regret is deepened by another measure of the Secretary, which seems alike unauthorized and unfortunate. The act of Congress of the 23d June, 1836, directed the Secretary to receive the capital stock belonging to the United States in the late Bank of the United States, in such instalments, and payable at such times, and with such rates of interest, as he shall see fit to agree to, and also to settle and adjust the claim for surplus profits accruing on said capital stock, on such terms as he may think proper." When this act passed it was perfectly well known to every member of Congress that, for nearly four years preceding, there had been a disputed question of law between the Government and the bank, in regard to damages on a bill of exchange, which the bank bad in vain urged the Executive to pursue before the judicial tribunals. The subject had been often before Congress-before the Committee of Ways and Means in 1833, who proposed no measure in regard to it-before the Committee on Finance of the Senate, who, in their report of the 18th of December, 1834, declared that the right of the bank was "founded in strict law;" that "the retainer was avowedly made to procure a submis. sion to the courts and juries of the country;" and that, "if the Government thinks itself wronged by such proceedings, the law prescribes the manner in which it shall seek redress." With the full knowledge of these facts, when Congress authorized the Secretary to settle with the bank for the capital stock and the surplus profits, they certainly could not have intended to refuse the receipt of this capital stock and surplus profits, unless the bank should surrender, unconditionally, its right to a judicial trial of the question which one of their own standing committees had decided in favor of the bank. Yet, without any the slightest authority from Congress, the Secretary, as appears by the public documents, has determined that he will never settle with the bank without a previous surrender of its rights-declaring that, "preliminary to a final adjustment of this interest, the Treasury Department would require that the bank should pay that portion of the dividend on the stock of the United States which had been withheld for damages on the draft upon the French Government." Now, it is manifest that this is a proceeding which Congress did not authorize, and can scarcely sanction. cannot be that the Congress of the United States, after passing a law declaring the mode in which questions between the Government and the citizens are to be adjudicated, and after seeing the bank pursue exactly that mode, will now endeavor to force the institution out of the path of law, by refusing to adjust other interests, which have no connexion whatever with that controversy. It The The original claim of damages was a necessary act of duty by the bank, in favor of the Government, who, if there was any right to draw the bill, had an equal right to the damages. The pecuniary interest involved was and is a matter of indifference. It was only the tone assumed in regard to it, and the evident design of forcing the bank to abandon its rights, which gave importance to the claim, and forbade the surrender of it. board of directors would deem themselves faithless, not merely to the institution, but to the cause of constitution. al freedom, if they could be thus driven from the courts of justice by any menace from an executive officer. They have accordingly decided the question deliberately and irrevocably. If the proffer of a judicial decision is accepted by the Government, the bank will cheerfully abide the result. But until then there should not be, and there cannot be, any surrender, or concession, or compromise. The board of directors will now make one final offer to settle, and they make it directly to your honorable bodies, so as to avert the hazard of any further media tion. They learn, from the printed report of the Secretary, that the commissioners would have recommended the following terms of settlement: To value each share of the stock at $115 58, and receive payment for it by equal instalments, payable in September, 1837, 1838, 1839, and 1840, with six per cent. interest until paid. The board of directors agree at once to those terms, and are ready to carry them into execution. They do not stop to inquire whether this be not too much. They prefer that it should be too much. They will never differ with Congress about mere sums of money, and are specially anxious to terminate their con. nexion with the Government in a manner satisfactory to all parties. By order of the board: N. BIDDLE, President. Mr. INGERSOLL then proceeded to state that the memorial went the whole length of adopting the terms of settlement which the Secretary of the Treasury was understood to desire. The stock held by the Government has been valued by the commissioners appointed by the Department at $115 58; and they propose that payment shall be made, by equal instalments, in September, 1837, 1838, 1839, and 1840, with six per cent. interest till paid. To this the bank distinctly accedes. What more can be desired? He therefore moved that the memorial be referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, and that it be printed; which was agreed to. On motion of Mr. CAMBRELENG, the House then proceeded to the orders of the day. ARMY APPROPRIATION BILL. The House then took up the amendments of the Senate to the "bill making appropriations for the support of the army and navy for the year 1837," which had been reported to the House from the Committee of the Whole, with sundry amendments made thereto. The first amendment of the committee to the Senate's amendment, making an appropriation for equipping the militia, was concurred in. Mr. TOUCEY then renewed the amendment made by him in Committee of the Whole, as follows: Appropriating $100,000 for the payment of the Connecticut militia called into the service during the last war, in the following cases: First, those called out to repel actual invasion. Secondly, those called out under State authority, and afterwards received into the service of the United States. And thirdly, where they were called out under the requisition of the President of the United States, or any other officer of the United States." [H. OF R. Mr. TOUCEY explained that this amendment was in conformity with the law paying the Massachusetts militia in like cases. The principle was well established, and he could not see on what grounds gentlemen could object to this amendment. The Government had admitted this principle in the case of the Massachusetts militia as much as seven years ago, and he appealed to gentlemen to grant the same justice to the militia of Connecticut. Mr. LINCOLN said, at the last session of Congress, a committee of the House had reported in favor of this claim, and hoped it might be adopted. He then intimated an intention of moving an amendment to this amendment when it should be in order to do so. Mr. HARDIN opposed this claim, on the ground that Connecticut had received larger amounts of the money of the Government for fortifications and internal improvements, in proportion to her population, than perhaps any other State in the Union. Mr. INGHAM said that, although that was a question of more than ordinary interest to the people of Connecticut, as involving a claim of that State upon the General Government of nearly one hundred thousand dollars, it was, in his judgment, quite as important to know whether Congress would constantly refuse to pay a demand against which no serious objection could be raised. The claims of Massachusetts, resting on precisely analogous grounds, had been recognised and paid, but no disposition had been shown to meet those of Connecticut; and he was desirous of having the question settled, whether Connecticut was entitled to the same justice which had been dispensed to Massachusetts and other States. The claim was for services rendered by the militia, and disbursements made, during the late war with Great Britain. By a resolution of the last session it was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs, which reported a bill for its liquidation and payment; and the amend ment, which was proposed and lost in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and which was then under consideration, was a literal transcript of the substantial parts of that bill. But, said Mr. I., it was asserted by the honorable gentleman from Tennessee that this amendment could not be incorporated into this bill. That, indeed, was a new discovery; for there was no rule of the House opposed to it; and, in point of fact, that very bill had been so amended, both in the Senate and in the House, as to make provision for the payment of the Tennessee volunteers in 1836, or, in other words, to pay the militia of Tennessee. The two cases were, in principle, perfectly analogous; and the only tangible difference between them was, that the demand of Tennessee originated within the last twelve months, while that of Connecticut had been of twenty-two years' standing. The bill appeared to be competent for meeting the claims of the Tennessee volunteers; and, when the amendment for that purpose was offered, no such objections were heard from the gentleman; but, when it was proposed to satisfy other claims by a similar amendment, the gentleman im. mediately discovered that such a proceeding was not in order. They had been told that it was proper to provide in that bill for the claim of Tennessee, because it had been subjected to the examination of the Committee of Claims. True, and the claim of Connecticut had been subjected to the examination of the Committee on Military Affairs. They were both standing committees of that House, and equally entitled to its confidence and respect. The objection, at best, was a mere matter of form; and, if it was intended to act upon the subject at all, a more suitable opportunity could not be presented. Gentlemen have said that they were ready to meet this claim whenever the bill reported by the Committee on Military Affairs should come up in its order. But wherefore not meet it at once? The claims of other States had been transferred to, and incorporated in, the bill under consideration, instead of being suffered to remain on the calendar, and come up in their order; and where could exist the validity of the objection against the claim of Connecticut taking the same course? It was well understood by every member there, that unless the amendment should be incorporated into the bill, the subject could not possibly receive the action of that Congress. Mr. I. hoped, therefore, that he should hear no more said about taking up this claim in its order, and especially by gentlemen who proposed to be friendly to it. It was said by the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. HARDIN,] that about $200,000 were appropriated at the last session of Congress to improve the harbors within the State of Connecticut, and that she was "a favored State." It would be difficult to see the precise bearing of this fact, even if it were correctly stated, upon the question before the House. It was true that Congress did, at the last session, so far open its eyes to the neglected condition and just claims of Connecticut as to appropriate about $55,000, not $200,000, as stated by the gentleman, to advance the interests of commerce in that State. What was meant by the declaration that she was "a favored State," Mr. I. knew not, unless it was an act of favor to refuse payment of her honest claims upon the General Government, which had been due more than twenty years. But the gentleman did not stop there. He had asserted that the Executives of some of the New England States, during the late war, withheld the command of their militia, when in the service of the United States, from the officers of the United States; and that he would never consent to pay for the services of militia under such circumstances; and the gentleman said he wished to know if this claim was not obnoxious to that objection. Sir, (said Mr. I.,) I will advert to the history of that claim; and, when I shall have done so, I greatly mistake the character of the honorable gentleman if he himself would not be willing to vote for its payment. [FEB. 25, 1837. ment. The militia, however, with the most patriotic motives, rallied for the preservation of the public property-the ships of war. They did preserve them. They were saved from recapture and destruction by the enemy through their patriotic efforts. They devoted their time, they expended their money, and they hazarded their lives, for the protection of the property and honor of the nation. The enemy were compelled to recede, and the ships remained in security until the close of the war. The great and wanton destruction of private prop erty, during that period, was justly attributable to the fact that the national vessels occupied the waters of that State, and were defended by her militia; yet (said Mr. I.) they asked no compensation for the vast amount of individual loss and suffering, but simply remuneration for services rendered, and disbursements actually made, in defending our ships of war, when they were unable to defend themselves. A more meritorious claim could not, in his opinion, be imagined. It had subsequently, in 1816, been presented to the Government for allow ance, with all the vouchers and evidences in its support; but was rejected, for the reasons stated by the gentleman from Kentucky, and which he (Mr. I.) would now briefly consider. The militia in question had been called into service under a requisition of the National Executive, and commanded by an officer of the National Government, until the 12th of September, 1814, when the command was assumed by a major general of militia, under the Exec utive of the State. No change, however, occurred in the plan of operations, but the campaign was properly and successfully conducted. It was (he said) well known that a difference of opin ion existed between the chief Executive of the Union and the Executives of several of the New England States, in reference to the true construction of the 3d section of the 1st article, and the 2d section of the 2d article, of the constitution of the United States, relating to the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States. An opinion was enter tained, by many of the distinguished jurists in New Eng land, that the militia of the States, when in the service of the United States, should continue to be commanded by their own officers, and not by those of the General Government. This opinion was embraced both by the Executive of Massachusetts, and by the supreme court of that State, to which the question had been submitted. Assuming such to be the true construction of the consti tution, the Governor of Massachusetts refused to submit the militia of that State to the command of the officers of the General Government. The Governor of Connec ticut, having also adopted similar views, accordingly, on the 12th of September, as already stated, transferred the command of the militia near New London to a major general of that body. The Executive of the United States properly resisted such a forced construction of the constitution, and refused to allow any claim for the services of militia rendered under circumstances of that character. At a subsequent date, however, when the asperity of party contests had, in some measure, subsi During the first year of the war, but little expense had been incurred for the defence of that State; but, in June, 1813, the frigate "United States," and her prize, the Macedonian," were driven into her waters for protection, by a superior naval force of the enemy. They were removed a short distance from the Sound to a place of greater security, where they remained until the close of the war. The coast, throughout its whole extent, was immediately laid under a strict blockade, which was rigidly enforced until the peace of 1815. There was imminent danger that the enemy would debark in the vicinity of New London, pass over land to the ships in the river, and destroy them. To prevent such an occurrence, the militia were immediately called out in sufficient force, placed under the command of a brigadier general in the service of the United States, and posted on both sides of the river, between the British squadron and the ships. In consequence of this movement, these vessels were preserved; but the eneiny soon commenced the pillage and destruction of private property. Numer. ous vessels were taken in Long Island Sound; and inded, Mr. Monroe, at that time President of the United April, 1814, a great amount of shipping was destroyed in Connecticut river. In August, of the same year, an attack was made upon the village of Stonington. The skill and gallantry with which the place was defended were matters of history, and required no commendation. The commerce of the State was suspended, and almost entirely prostrated, from June, 1813, to the close of the war. It was one of the most gloomy periods of their po litical history. Differences of opinion as to men, and the course of policy pursued by those in power, greatly embarrassed the administration of the General Govern States, was induced, by the solicitations of the State of Massachusetts, then urging her claim, to review the sub. ject; and though he strictly adhered to his former construction of the constitution, under which the claims of Massachusetts and Connecticut had been disallowed, yet in view of the modified tone of public sentiment, and the disclaimer by the then Executive of the former State of the principle maintained by his predecessor, he thought it advisable to waive the objection. In a special message upon this subject, communicated to Congress on the 23d of February, 1824, he says: "I have been led to conclude, on great consideration, that the principles of justice, as well as a due regard for the great interests of our Union, require that this claim, in the extent proposed, should be acceded to. Essential service was rendered, in the late war, by the militia of Massachusetts, and with the most patriotic motives. It seems just, therefore, that they should be compensated for such service in like manner with the militia of the other States. The constitutional difficulty did not originate with them, and has now been removed. It comports with our system to look to the service rendered, and to the intention with which it was rendered, and to award the compensation accordingly, especially as it may now be done without the sacrifice of principle. The motive, in this instance, is the stronger, because well satisfied I am that, by so doing, we shall give the most effectual support to our republican institutions. No latent cause of discontent will be left behind. The great body of the people will be gratified, and even those who now survive, who were then in error, cannot fail to see, with interest and satisfaction, this distressing occurrence thus happily terminated. I therefore consider it my duty to recommend to Congress to make provision for the settlement of the claim of Massachusetts, for services rendered in the late war by the militia of the State, in conformity with the rules which have govern. ed in the settlement of the claims for services rendered by the militia of the other States." Upon the communication of that message, and also upon a memorial from Massachusetts, Congress proceeded to the consideration of the subject, and, after the most mature deliberation, adopted the views of the President, determined to allow the claims, and an act was accordingly passed providing for their settlement. Under that act a great proportion of them had already been paid; and it only remained for Congress, in the present instance, to follow the same course of proceeding, and leave no further sources of jealousy or complaint. The two cases were, in all respects, precisely parallel, and the objections to them the same. Massachusetts and Connecticut had proceeded together in their difficulties with the General Government, and were, nearly at the same time, found to entertain different political sentiments. He was not (he said) and never had been one of those who approved the peculiar opinions that had given rise to those difficulties, but he believed that no consideration of that nature ought to influence him, or any other member of the House, in determining the merits of this claim. Adverting once more to the character of the claim, he would no longer detain the House. The Connecticut militia were not called into service by State authority, but under a requisition of the President; and the motives with which that call was responded to, the nature of the services rendered, their importance in securing the national property from destruction, were all facts which could not fail to commend their claim to the most favorable attention of Congress. It had never been met by any legislative enactment, but was rejected by the President, rather on the ground of expediency than positive law. The only objection ever offered to their validity had been waived by him who was principally instrumental in raising it. It had been abandoned by the President, and the payment of similar claims to the State of Massachusetts had been directed by Congress. After some further remarks, Mr. I. concluded by expressing a hope that, in the room of any further delay, the amendment under consideration would be adopted. Mr. MANN, of New York, remarked that the State of Connecticut was not asking a favor at the hands of the General Government, but a mere simple act of justice. She was fairly entitled to the claims she now set up, and similar claims had been heretofore paid. It was not VOL. XIII.-123 [H. of R. long since that a claim of the same general character, at least, had been paid to the State of Georgia, due from the time of the Revolution, amounting to between two and three hundred thousand dollars. Massachusetts, however, had been paid her claims under precisely similar circumstances, and based on the identical principles, to that of Connecticut. He was at a loss to perceive the justice of refusing this appropriation. Mr. WHITTLESEY, of Connecticut, gave a history of the claim, and referred to the action of the Legislature of the State as an evidence of the feeling among the people on the subject. He also insisted that there was no incongruity in ingrafting it upon the present bill, for the separate bill would not be reached this session. It had been demonstrated by his colleague that Connecticut had received a very small pittance, compared with others, and in reference to her geopraphical position on the seaboard, of the appropriations of the General Gov. ernment; and all he would then add was, that the histo ry of the country showed that Connecticut had poured out her blood as freely, during the hour of peril, as any other State of the confederacy. Mr. UNDERWOOD inquired if the proposed payment was intended to include those who fought and those who refused to muster under the authority of the United States, because he wished a distinction to be drawn. Mr. TOUCEY replied, and showed the precise analogy between the cases of Connecticut and Massachusetts. Mr. McKAY would vote for it, not only because he believed the claim to be a well-founded one, and just in itself, but because it was identical with the precedent set in the case of Massachusetts. The amendment of Mr. ToucEY was then agreed to, without a division. Mr. McKAY then renewed his amendment to pay the claims of North Carolina for the services of her militia during the late war with Great Britain, in the cases enumerated in the act approved the 31st of May, 1830, entitled "An act to authorize the payment of the claims of the State of Massachusetts, for the services of her militia during the late war, and also the claims of said State for disbursements, &c., on account of the war," the sum of $30,000. Mr. McKAY briefly advocated the claim, on the ground of its being strictly analogous to that of Massachu setts. Mr. MERCER was not satisfied that the analogy had been clearly made out. Mr. OWENS inquired if it had undergone investigation by any committee of the House. Mr. McKAY replied that it had been submitted to the Committee of Claims during the last session, but no report had been made. Mr. PARKER objected to this mode, which had too much prevailed in the Senate, of ingrafting amendments upon bills with which they had no necessary connexion. It was a practice he had always disapproved of, and which he would never sanction. The amendment of Mr. McKAY was then agreed to: Yeas 86, nays not counted. Mr. DUNLAP offered the following amendment, originally submitted by him in Committee of the Whole: "And be it further enacted, That the volunteers in the State of Tennessee, who equipped themselves, and marched to the place of rendezvous, and tendered their services, according to the proclamation of the Governor of said State, in the year 1836, and were not received in. to the service of the United States, be paid the same, by the paymaster general, that is allowed by this act to be paid to those volunteers who were received into the service of the United States, and immediately discharged, on the commandants of the companies thus refused re turning, on oath, to the Secretary of War, complete returns of the number of officers and men in their respective companies, to be paid out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated." [FEB. 25, 1837. marched to Florida, Pensacola, and to Orleans, during Mr. D. said if the members of the House would but examine the claims of those intended to be provided for by the amendment he had just offered, he had no doubt they would with equal liberality vote for his amendment. The facts are these. The Governor of Tennessee was called on by General Gaines and the Secretary of War, during the year eighteen hundred and thirty-six, for volunteers, at different periods; and the Governor issued a proclamation, calling on the citizens of Tennessee to vol. unteer their services, and rendezvous at Fayetteville, in West Tennessee, and Athens, in East Tennessee, mounted and equipped, to perform a six or twelve months' campaign. There rendezvoused at those places of rendezvous more volunteers than were called for by the Secretary of War, and only a portion of them were received and mustered into service; the remainder of them, that bad marched from one to two hundred miles at their own expense, who were at all the expense of purchasing horses and clothing, for a campaign of six and twelve months, had to return home at their own expense, without ever having received one cent for their expenses or services. Now, sir, the class provided for in the bill are those who marched to the place of rendezvous under the call of General Gaines, and were mustered into the service of the United States, and immediately discharged. They receive by this bill pay for six months' clothing, amounting to about thirty-four dollars each. There has not been the first voice heard on this floor against paying this last class of volunteers; and I would like any gentleman to show why one of this class of volunteers should be paid, and the others not: they were alike mer. itorious and patriotic, and they were at the like expense of purchasing horses and clothing. The expenses of those who were received into service were paid, and those who were not received had to pay their own expenses. If there ever was a claim that ought to be paid, Mr. Speaker, this is one. The patriotism of the citizens of Tennessee was called on by the Executive of the State, and if Congress refuses to remunerate the patriot citizens who thus marched to the standard of their country, you may call in vain for their services hereafter. They will not know whether they would be received; and if they should not, they must be at the expense of equip-. ping and supporting themselves, without the least prospect of receiving any compensation from their Government for all the expense they would necessarily incur. Sir, if this Government wishes the services of her citizens in time of war, they must act with justness towards them, and let them know that if more of them tender their services than are required, those who are not received shall be paid all their expenses. The patriotism which burns in the bosom of every Tennesseean brought more to the place of rendezvous than the number required by the Government; and those who happened to arrive at the ground first in the morning were received into the service, and discharged; those who arrived in the evening were not received. I will ask the members of this House, and every man in the United States, what difference is there in the merit of these two classes? They both volunteered for their country's service; they both incurred considerable expense; left their homes, their families, to the injury of their private affairs, with the same object; travelled to the same point. One class was immediately received, mustered into service, and discharged, fed at the public expense. The other class, although at the same spot, for the same purpose, and at the same time, after marching upwards of two hundred miles, are not only rejected, but disallowed even one day's provision for themselves, or forage for their horses; those who were receiv ed and discharged performed not one jot or tittle more service than those who were rejected; they deserved as much precisely as they who were accepted. I invoke the justice and the magnanimity of Congress to allow the second class the same compensation you do the first; for their losses will be great enough then in buying horses, clothes, arms, and equipage, they would not have purchased but for the prospect of serving their country; many of them, in addition to this, lost the business or employment in which they were engaged, and suffered serious injury thereby. Neither the justice of the country nor the policy of the Government requires at our hands that we should refuse payment to these meritorious men. After some remarks by Mr. WHITTLESEY, of Ohio, in opposition to the amendment, it was disagreed to, without a division. Mr. BELL (in the unavoidable absence of his colleague, [Mr. PEYTON,] whose attendance was required, by order of the House, on one of the select committees) renewed the amendment offered by Mr. PEITON in Committee of the Whole, as follows: "For the pay of the Tennessee volunteers who were Mr. HUNTSMAN then addressed the House as fol- called out and mustered into the service the 10th of Delows: Mr. Speaker: I solicit the attention of the House to the amendment proposed by my colleague, [Mr. DUNLAP, which contemplates the payment of those Tennessee volunteers who marched to the place of rendezvous, and were not received into the service of the United States. These troops promptly assembled at their country's call; they incurred considerable expense in procuring such horses, rifles, clothing, and equipments essential for the Florida campaign, and marched, some of them, upwards of two hundred miles to the place of rendezvous at Fayetteville, in Tennessee, with an intent to do battle against the enemies of their country. They had no constitutional scruples in regard to passing boundary lines; all they desired to know was, where were the enemies of their country; for with the enemy the business was to settle. They were some of the same men who cember, 1812, dismissed provisionally in April, 1813, called again into the service in September, 1813, and discharged finally on the 10th of December, 1813, five months' full pay, which they have never heretofore received." The amendment was disagreed to, without a division. Mr. LAWLER moved to amend the amendment by adding an appropriation of $15,000, as one month's pay to the volunteers of the State of Alabama, who marched to the place of rendezvous at Vernon, but who were not mustered into the service of the United States, in conscquence of the neglect of the officer of the Government to whom the duty had been assigned. Mr. DENNY wished to inquire from the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. LAWLER] to what officer allusion was made in this charge of neglect. He (Mr. D.) would like to know whether there was any foundation for the |