Another amendment was offered, by Mr. Rowan, prohibiting the supreme court from declaring the constitution, or any law of a state, void or invalid, unless seven of the judges concur in that decision. This amendment, which struck at the fundamental principle, upon which all judicial and legislative questions are decided in this country; an amendment, which would have given to the minority of the court, the power to control the majority; and still worse, would have authorised that minority to sustain a single state, in an attempt to violate the constitution of the United States, was rejected by a vote of 21 to 20. The strong support which this proposition received in the senate, was asserted to be owing to the desire felt by a portion of the senate to defeat the bill, without directly opposing it. It was well ascertained, that no such principle could receive the sanction of the house; and it was advocated by some, with a view to clog the bill with this unacceptable provision. This object, however, was attained in another manner. The other amendment being made, the bill then received the sanction of the senate, and was sent to the house for concurrence. It there met with decided opposition. The whole delegation from Ohio, and all but three from Kentucky, opposed this alteration of the

circuits, on the ground, that in Ohio and Kentucky, there existed at present the evil complained of, in a greater degree, than in all the other western states: that those two states contained a greater population than any other circuit, and indeed, greater than in the three new circuits together: and that the litigation then depending, before the federal courts in Ohio and Kentucky, composed a greater docket, than the pending suits in all the other western states. These reasons prevailed, and the house divided; on the question of agreeing to the amendment of the senate, 110 against, and 60 in favor of the amendment. The senate, however, contrary to established usage, adhered to its amendment in the first instance, instead of insisting on it; and, subsequently, when the house, in the hope of adjusting the difference, asked for a conference between the two houses, and appointed conferees; the senate declined the conference, and the bill was lost.

An act altering the time of holding the supreme court, to the second Monday of January, so as to enable that court to hold a longer term, in order to dispose of the numerous appeals which had accumulated on its docket, met with a more favorable fate, and became a law.

In pursuance of an act of congress, the secretary of the treasury,

As by this statement, it appeared, that in the years 1826 and 1827, the ordinary resources in the treasury would be unable to discharge those portions of the public debt becoming payable in those years, the secretary recommend ed, that proposals should be authorised for a loan, to the amount of fifteen millions, (which he considered as the deficiency,) at 5 per cent., payable in 1829 and 1830.

In this manner, the treasury would be enabled to discharge those portions of the public debt, redeemable in 1826 and 1827, and to distribute the repayments upon years, when but small sums were made redeemable.

The committee of ways and means, in the house of representatives, to whom was referred this document, took a different view of the subject. They considered, that the time at which the loans were made redeemable, was fixed for the benefit of the government; and that it was not bound to redeem them at that time, but had the option of so doing, if it thought proper.

The modes of paying off the public debt were three, viz :

1st. By paying the whole of any loan at one time. This was the mode ordinarily adopted; but, necessarily, occasioned an expenditure, on account of interest, by the

accumulation of large sums in the treasury.

2d. By a new loan, or exchange of stock, reimbursable at a period sufficiently remote to induce the loaner to reduce the rate of interest. This was the mode recommended by the secretary of the treasury.

3d. By applying the means of the treasury quarterly to the discharge of so much of the debt, as can be discharged by that surplus. This mode the committee thought preferable to either of the others. The committee, by applying the surplus in the treasury, at the end of the years 1826 and 1827, to the increase of the sinking fund, according to the act of 1817, made the deficiency of the treasury, to discharge the loans redeemable in those years, to be only $8,351,803; being $6,648,197 less than the estimate of the secretary. To redeem this sum in the years when it was redeemable, the committee did not think it expedient to make new loans, especially at that moment of severe pecuniary distress. It was doubted, whether money at a less rate of interest could be procured, and the saving to the government, by the exchange, would be less than that by partial payments made quarterly. The saving, by this latter mode, over that by an exchange of stocks, at 5 per

cent. would be $481,934. This, however, was upon the supposition, that the receipts would exceed the estimates of the secretary. The committee were of that opinion; and, accordingly, reported against making any new loan, and recommended that the stocks should be redeemed quarterly, according as the state of finances would permit. To prevent that disappointment, to which the revolutionary pensioners had been constantly subjected, by the neglect of congress to pass the appropriation bills, a bill was introduced, at an early stage of the session, for the appropriation of $1,576,290, for the payment of revolutionary and other pensions. This bill passed without much opposition, and the government was relieved from that censure, which is as sure to attach, to a tardy acknowledgment of a debt of gratitude, as to a total neglect of the claim.

On the 26th of January, the appropriation bill, for fortifying the coast, was taken up.

Mr. Kremer moved to strike out the first section of the bill. He said, he was altogether opposed to the system. It was extravagant; and he should prefer to apply the money it cost, to the discharge of the national debt. Upon calling a division upon his motion, he was the only vote in favor of it. Mr. Cocke, and Mr. Mitchell, of Ten

nessee; Mr. Forsyth, of Georgia; and Mr. Floyd, of Virginia, opposed the passage of the bill: they thought the appropriations too large; and they disliked this annual expenditure on objects, to which they could see no reasonable limit.

Mr. M'Lane replied, that it was too late to raise an objection to the policy of fortifications. It had been adopted by the government, after much consideration, and was justified by every consideration of expediency, and by the experience of the last war. These fortresses, for which appropriations were asked, were already in a state of forwardness, and great expenditures had been made upon them. For their completion, an annual appropriation was requisite; and the sums asked in the bill were the least, that could be applied to enable the works to proceed with advantage.

Mr. Forsyth objected, that these appropriations were all for the north, or the southwest; and that none were made for Georgia or South Carolina. He could not consent to expend large sums, year after year, until he was satisfied as to their equal distribution, for the protection of all. He wanted more information, and to obtain, he moved for a postponement of the bill.

Mr. Pearce, of Rhode Island, replied, that these fortifications