citizenship, and without being, in fact, a citizen. But it seems he desired to bring his action in the circuit court of the United States in Missouri; and, to enable him to do that, he had to allege citizenship, because Mr. Sandford, the defendant, was a citizen of New York, and unless the plaintiff were a citizen of Missouri (or some other State) the national court had no jurisdiction of the case.

The plaintiff having made his election to sue in the United States court, the defendant might, if he would, have pleaded in bar to the merits of the action, but he exercised his election to plead in abatement to the jurisdiction of the court; thus, that the action, if any, accrued to the said Dred Scott out of the jurisdiction of this court, and exclusively within the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of Missouri, for that, to wit, the said plaintiff, Dred Scott, is not a citizen of the State of Missouri, as alleged in his declaration, [not because he was not born there, and born free, but] because he is a negro of African descent; his ancestors were of pure African blood, and were brought into this country and sold as negro slaves, and this the said Sandford is ready to verify. Wherefore he prays judgment whether this court can or will take further cognizance of the action aforesaid." To this plea the plaintiff demurred, and the circuit court sustained the demurrer, thereby declaring that the facts stated in the plea, and confessed by the demurrer, did not disqualify Scott for being a citizen of Missouri, and so that the Unitedtes circuit court had jurisdiction of the cause.

The circuit court having taken jurisdiction, the defendant had, of course, to plead over to the merits of the action. He did so, and issues were joined, and there was an elaborate trial of the facts, which resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the defendant. And thereupon the plaintiff brought the case up to the Supreme Court by writ of error. The power of the Supreme Court over the proceedings and judgments of the circuit court is appellate only, and this for the sole purpose of enabling the court above to affirm what has been rightly done, and reverse what has been wrongly done in the court below. If the error of the court below consist in the illegal assumption of power to hear and determine the merits of a case not within its jurisdiction, of course the court above will correct that error, by setting aside whatever may have been done by that usurped authority. And in doing this the court above has no more power than the court below had to hear and determine the merits of the case. And to assume the power to determine a case not within the jurisdiction is as great an error in the court above as in the court below; for it is equally true, in all courts, that the jurisdiction must first be ascertained before proceeding to judgment.

In this particular case the Supreme Court did first examine and consider the plea in abatement, and did adjudge that it was a good plea, sufficient to oust the jurisdiction of the circuit court. And hence it follows, as a necessary legal consequence, that whatever was done in the circuit court after the plea in abatement, and touching the merits of the case, was simply void, because done coram non judice

Pleas in abatement were never favorites with the courts in England or America. Lord Coke tel s us that they must be "certain to a certain intent, in every particular," and in practice they are always dealt with very strictly. When, therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the plea in abate ment in this case, I assume that it is affirmed, in manner a. d form, as written, and not otherwise. And this not merely because pleas in abatement are always considered stricti legis, but also, and chiefly, because the decision tends to abridge the valuable rights of persons natural born in the country, which rights ought not to be impaired, except upon the clearest evidence of fact and law.

titled to all the respect which is due to the learned and upright sources from which the opinions come, was "dehors the record," and of no authority as a judicial decision.

To show that, notwithstanding all that was said upon other subjects, the action of the court was strictly confined to the plea in abatement, I copy the judgment:

"Upon the whole, therefore, it is the judgment of this court that it appears by the record before us that the plaintiff in error is not a citizen of Missouri, in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution, and that the circuit court of the United States, for that reason, hal no juri diotion in the case, and could give no jud ɲment in it. Its judg ment for the defendant must, consequently, be reversed, and a mandate issued, directing the suit to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.”

And now, upon the whole matter, I give it as my opinion that the free man of color, mentioned in your letter, if born in the United States, is a citizen of the United States, and, if otherwise qualified, is competent, according to the acts of Congress, to be master of a vessel engaged in the coasting trade. All of which is respectfully submitted by your obedient servant, EDWARD BATES, Attorney General.

Pay of Colored Soldiers. Attorney General Bates has decided that persons of color who were free on the 19th of April, 1861, and who were enlisted and mustered into the military service of the United States between December, 1862, and 16th of June. 1864, are entitled by law to receive the same amounts of pay, bounty and clothing, as are, by the law existing at the times of their enlistment, allowed to other soldiers in the volunteer forces of the United States of like arms of the service.

To THE PRESIDENT :

THE OPINION IN FULL

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE,
July 14, 1864

SIR: By your communication of the 24th ultimo, you require my opinion in writing, as to what amounts of pay, bounty and clothing are allowed by law to persons of color who were free on the 19th day of April, 1861, and who have been enlisted and mustered into the military service of the United States between the month of December, 1862, and the 16th of June, 1864.

I suppose that whatever doubt or difficulty may exist with regard to the amount of pay and allowances to which the soldiers to whom you refer are entitled, has mainly its origin in the several provisions of the act of July 17th, 1862, chap. 201, (12 Stat. 599,) relative to the employment and enrollment of persons of "African descent in the service of the United States. The 12th section of that statute provides, "That the President be and he is hereby authorized to receive into the service of the United States, for the purpose of con structing intrenchments or performing camp service, or any other labor, or any military or naval service for which they may be found competent, persons of African descent, and such persons shall be enrolled and organized under such regulations, not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws, as the President may prescribe." The 15th section of the same statute enacts, that "persons of African descent who under this law shall be employed shall receive ten dollars per month and one ration, three dollars of which monthly pay may be in clothnig"

The first and main question, therefore, is, whether s persons of color referred to in your letter, who wre

Taking the plea, then, strictly as it is written, the persons who are excluded by this judgment from being citizens of Missouri must be negroes, not mulatoes, nor mestizos, nor quadroons. They must be of African descent, not Asiatic, even though they come of the blackest Malays in southeastern Asia. They must have had ancestors, (yet that may be doubtful, if born in slavery, of putative parents, who were slaves, and being slaves, incapable of contracting matrimony, and therefore every child must ne ds be a bas-mustered into the military service of the United States dutard, and so, by the common law, nullius filius, and incapab e of ancestors.) His ancestors, if he had any, must have been of pure Áfrican blood, not mixed with the tawny Moor of Morocco or the dusky Arab of the desert, both of whom had their origin in Asia. They must have been brought to this country, not come voluntarily; and sold, not kept by the importer for his own use, nor given to his friends.

In this argument I raise no question upon the legal validity of the judgment in Scott vs. Sandford. I only insist that the judgment in that case is limited in law, as it is, in fact, limited on the face of the record, to the plea in abatement; and, consequently, that whatever was said in the long course of the case, as reported, (240 pages,) respecting the legal merits of the case, and respecting any supposed legal disability resulting from the mere fact of color, though en

ring the period of time which you indicate, are "persons of African descent," employed UNDER the statute of July 17th, 1862, chap. 201. If they are not thus employed, their com pensation should not be governed and is not regulated by the words of the 15th section of the statute, which I have just quoted.

Now I think that it is clear-too clear indeed to admit of doubt or discussion-that those persons of color who have voluntarily enlisted and have been mustered into our military service-who have been organized with appropriate officers into companies, regiments, and brigades of soldiers— and who have done and are doing in the field and in gar rison the duty and service of soldiers of the United Statesare not persons of African descent employed under the statute to which I have referred.

I do not find, indeed, in the act any authority to enlist

MISCELLANEOUS.

persons of African descent into the service, as soldiers. It will be observed that the said twelfth section enumerates two kinds of employment for which those persons are authorized to be enrolled, namely, constructing intrenchThe section then conments and performing camp service. tains a more general authority-authority to receive such persons into the service for the purpose of performing "any other labor or any military or naval service for which they I am bound, however, by every may be found competent.' rule of law, respecting the construction of statutes, to construe these words of more general authority with reference to the character, nature and quality of the particular kinds of labor and service which are, in the first instance, specific ally enumerated in the statute, as those for the performance of which persons of African descent are authorized to be received into the service, and, therefore, I must suppose that Congress, when it conferred authority upon the President to receive into the service of the United States persons of African descent for the purpose of performing any other labor or any military service for which they may be found competent, meant and intended that that other labor and military service should be of the same general character, nature and quality as that which it had previously in the "Always in statute, specially named and designated. statutes," says Coke, "relation shall be made according to the matter precedent." Dwarris says: "sometimes words and sections are governed and explained by conjoined words and clauses: noscitur a socis." (Dwarris on stat. 604.) Applying these rules of construction then to the act before me, I am constrained to hold, that if the authority to enlist and muster into the military service soldiers of African descent depended upon this statute, (as it does not,) it would furnish no foundation for such authority. It is manifest that the labor and service that United States soldiers are enlisted to perform, are of an essentially different character from, and are essentially of a higher nature, order and quality than those kinds of labor and service specifically named in the statute, and for the performance of which the President is specially authorized to employ "persons of African descent." In my late opinion in the case of the claim of Rev. Samuel Harrison for full pay as Chaplain of the 54th Regiment of Massachusetts Volunteers, I expressed the same view when I said that the act of July 17, 1862, chap. 201, "was not intended either to authorize the employment or to fix the pay of any persons of African descent, except those who might be needed to perform the humbler offices of labor and service for which they might be found competent."

This view finds confirmation in a statute that received the approval of the President on the same day as the act before me--the statute of July 17, 1862, chap. 195 (12 Stat., 592)which conferred upon the President the authority to employ as many persons of African descent as he might deem necessary and proper for the suppression of the rebellion, and gave him power to organize and use them in such manner as he might judge best for the public welfare. In these words we may find clear and ample authority for the enlistmens of persons of African descent as United States soldiers. It is ander this act, if under either of the acts of July 17, 1862, that colored volunteer soldiers may be said to have been employed. There is no need to resort, therefore, to the seatute of July 17, 1862, chap. 201, for any authority with respect to their employment, or for any rule in regard to their compensation. Persons of African descent employed as soldiers are not embraced at all, as I have shown, by the act of July 17, 1862, chap. 201, as objects or subjects of legislation; and we must therefore look to some other law for the measure of their compensation.

I find the law for the compensation of the persons of color referred to in your letter to me in the acts of Congress in force at the dates of the enlistments of those persons, respecting the amount of pay and bounty to be given and the amount and kind of clothing to be allowed to soldiers in the voluntee service of the United States. For, after a careful and critical examination, I believe, of every statute enacted since the foundation of the present Government relative to the enlis ment of soldiers in the regular and volunteer forces of the United States, I have found no law which at any time ohibited the enlistment of free colored men into either braach of the national military service. The words of Congre descriptive of the recruits competent to enter the service were, in the act of April 30, 1790, "able-bodied men not under five feet six inches in height without shoes, not under the age of eighteen nor above the age of fortyfive;" in the act of March 3, 1795, "able-bodied, of at least five feet six inches in height, and not under the age of eighteen nor above the age of forty-six years;" in the act of March 3, 1799, "able-bodied and of a size and age suitable for the public service according to the directions which the President of the United States shall and may establish;" in the act of March 16, 1802, "effective able-bodied citizens of the United States, of at least five feet six inches high and between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years;" in the acts of December 24, 1811, January 11, 1812, January 20,

|

1813, and January 27, 1814, "effective able-bodied men;"
men between the ages of eighteen and fifty years;" and in
in the act of December 10, 1814, "free, effective able-bodied
the foregoing statutes are obsolete; others of them are still
the act of January 12, 1847, "able-bodied men." Some of
in force, and furnished, before the suspension of the writ of
habeas corpus, the rule by which the validity of the enlist-
ments of persons alleged to have been minors was every day
tried in the State and Federal courts. They organized the
military establishments of the United States in time of
peace and in time of war. They embrace the periods of all
the wars, previously to the present, in which the United
States has been engaged. By no one of them was or is the
enlistment of free colored men into the military service of
the United States, whether as volunteers or as regulars,
prohibited. After the war of 1812 claims for bounty land
preferred by persons of color who had enlisted and served
in the army under the statutes of 24th December, 1811, Jan-
uary 11, 1812, and December 10, 1814, were sustained as
valid by the then Attorney General, William Wirt. (1 Opin.,
603.) And when I turn to more recent statutes-those which
authorized the raising and regulate the organization of the
whole body of the volunteer forces now in the field, and
provided for the maintenance and increase of the regular
forces in the service-I discover throughout them no other
statutory qualifications for recruits than those established
It is not needed that I should specially recite the words
by the earliest legislation to which I have referred.
of those acts of Congress that provide for the pay, bounty,
and clothing to be allowel to soldiers in the volunteer
military service of the United States. It is enough to say
that under the statutes relative to those subjects, and in
force during the period of time mentioned in your commu-
nication, all volunteers competent and qualified to be mem-
bers of the national forces, are entitled respectively to re-
ceive like amounts of pay, bounty, and clothing from the
Government.

In view, therefore, of the foregoing considerations, I give it to you unhesitatingly, as my opinion, that the same pay, color referred to in your communication, and who were enbounty, and clothing are allowed by law to the persons of listed and mustered into the military service of the United States between the months of December, 1862, and the 16th enlistments of said persons, authorized and provided for, of June, 1864, as are by the laws existing at the times of the and allowed to, other soldiers in the volunteer forces of the United States of like arms of the servizo.

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient EDWARD BATES. servant,

Gen. McClellan's Letters. ON POLITICAL ADMINISTRATION, JULY 7, 1862. HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE POTOMAC, CAMP NEAR HARRISON'S LANDING, VA., July 7, 1862. MR. PRESIDENT: You have been fully informed that the rebel army is in the front, with the purpose of overwhelming us by attacking our positions or reducing us by blocking our river communications. I cannot but regard our condition as critical, and I carnestly desire, in view of possible contingencies, to lay before your excellency, for your private consideration, my general views concerning the existing state of the rebellion, although they do not strictly relate to the situation of this army, or strictly come within convictions, and are deeply impressed upon my mind and the scope of my official duties. These views amount to heart. Our cause must never be abandoned; it is the cause and the Union must be preserved, whatever may be the of free institutions and self-government. The Constitution cost in time, treasure, and blood. If secession is successful, other dissolutions are clearly to be seen in the future. Let neither military disaster, political faction, nor foreign war shake your settled purpose to enforce the equal operation of the laws of the United States upon the people of every State.

The time has come when the government must determine upon a civil and military policy, covering the whole ground of our national trouble.

The responsibility of determining, declaring, and supporting such civil and military policy, and of directing the whole course of national affairs in regard to the rebellion, must now be assumed and exercised by you, or our cause will be lost. The Constitution gives you power, even for the present terrible exigency.

This rebellion has assumed the character of a war: as such it should be regarded, and it should be conducted upon the highest principles known to Christian civilization. It should not be a war looking to the subjugation of the war upon population, but against armed forces and political people of any State, in any event. It should not be at all a organizations. Neither confiscation of property, political executions of persons, territorial organization of States, or

IN FAVOR OF THE ELECTION OF GEORGE W. WOOD- month of May last, by several officers and agents of the Ex

ecutive, without search warrrant upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the things to be seized; and the seizure of papers and despatches in said offices was a DEAR SIR: My attention has been called to an article in violation of the constitutional "right of the people to be the Philadelphia Press, asserting that I had written to the secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects agent managers of a Democratic meeting at Allentown, disap-unreasonable searches and seizures;" and that the Prei proving the objects of the meeting, and that if I voted or spoke it would be in favor of Governor Curtin, and I am informed that similar assertions have been made throughout

6. That neither Congress, nor the President, nor the jn. ciary, have any constitutional power to abridge the freedar It has been my earnest endeavor heretofore to avoid par- of speech or of the press; and that the suspension of Lew▸ ticipation in party politics. I had determined to adhere to paper presses by military authority and force, and the arre this course, but it is obvious that I cannot longer maintain of citizens by military or civil authority, for the expression silence under such misrepresentations. I therefore request by speech, or through the press, of opinions upon political you to deny that I have written any such letter, or enter-subjects, or subjects of any kind, is a violation of the C»► tained any such views as those attributed to me in the Phil- stitution. adelphia Press, and I desire to state clearly and distinctly, that having some days ago had a full conversation with Judge Woodward, I find that our views agree, and I regard his election as Governor of Pennsylvania called for by the

IN SENATE.

387

Ashley, Baily, John D. Baldwin, Baxter, Beaman, Blame,
Francis P. Blair, Boutwell, Boyd, Broomall, William G.
Brown, Ambrose W. Clark, Freeman Clarke, Cobb, Cole, Cres-
well, Henry Winter Davis, Thomas T. Davis, Dixon, Donnelly,
Driggs, Dumont, Eckley, Eliot, Frank, Garfield, Gooch, Grin-

1862, Dec. 15-Mr. DAVIS, of Kentucky, nell, Hale, Higby, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, offered this resolution:

Resolved, That after it had become manifest that an insur-Clurg, McIndoe, Samuel F. Miller, Morrill, Daniel Morris, John H. Hubbard, Jenckes, Julian, Kasson, Kelley, Francis rection against the United States was about to break out in W. Kellogg, Orlando Kellogg, Loan, Marvin, McBride, Meseveral of the southern States, James Buchanan, then President, from sympathy with the conspirators and their treasonable project, failed measures to prevent it; wherefore he should receive the to take necessary and proper censure and condemnation of the Senate and the American people.

Dec 16-Mr. SAULSBURY offered this amendment:"

Resolved further, That a copy of the foregoing resolution be served upon the said James Buchanan, and that he be notified that he has liberty to defend himself before the Senate against the charges in said resolution contained, if

he shall choose so to do.

Same day-The resolution and proposed amendment were laid upon the table-yeas 38, nays 3, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Arnold, Browning, Carlile, Clark,
Collamer, Cowan, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Field, Foot,
Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harding, Harlan, Harris, Henderson,
Kennedy, King, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Latham,
Morrill, Nesmith, Pomeroy, Powell, Rice, Saulsbury, Sher-
man, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Willey, Wilson of Mass-
achusetts, Wilson of Missouri, Wright-38.
NAYS-Messrs. Davis, Howe, Wilkinson-3.

OF MESSRS. LONG AND HARRIS.
First Session, Thirty-Eighth Congress.
IN HOUSE.

1864, April 9-Mr. COLFAX, the Speaker, (Mr. ROLLINS, of New Hampshire, in the Chair,) offered this preamble and resolution:

Whereas on the 8th of April, 1864, when the House of Representatives was in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, ALEXANDER LONG, & Representative from the second district of Ohio, declared himself in favor of recognizing the independence and nationality of the socalled confederacy now in arms against the Union; and whereas, the said so-called confederacy, thus sought to be recognized and established on the ruins of a dissolved or destroyed Union, has as its chief officers, civil and military, those who have added perjury to their treason, and who seek to obtain success for their parricidal efforts by the killing of the loyal soldiers of the nation who are secking to save it from destruction; and whereas the oath required of all members, and taken by the said ALEXANDER LONG on the first day of the present Congress, declares "that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encour agement to persons engaged in armed hostility to the United States," thereby declaring that such conduct is regarded as inconsistent with membership in the Congress of

the United States: Therefore,

Pomeroy, Price, William H. Randall, Edward H. Rollins,
Schenck, Scofield, Shannon, Smith, Smithers, Spalding, Starr,
Amos Myors, Leonard Myers, Norton, Orth, Patterson, Pike,
Washburne, William B. Washburn, Webster, Whaley, Wil-
Thayer, Thomas, Tracy, Upson, Van Valkenburgh, Ellihu B.
liams, Wilder, Wilson, Windom, Woodbridge-84.

win, Bliss, James S. Brown, Chanler, Clay, Cox, Cravens,
NAYS-Messrs. James C. Allen, Ancona, Augustus C. Bald
Dawson, Denison, Eden, Eldridge, English, Finck, Ganson,
Philip Johnson, William Johnson, Kernan, Law, Lazear,
Grider, Harding, Harrington, Herrick, Holman, Hutchins,
Kinney, Middleton, William H. Miller, James R. Morris,
Le Blond, Long, Mallory, Marcy, McAllister, McDowell, Mo
Morrison, Nelson, Odell, Pendleton, Pruyn, Samuel J. Ran-
Chilton A. White, Joseph W. White, Winfield, Fernando
dall, Robinson, Rogers, James S. Rollins, Ross, Scott, John
B. Steele, William G. Steele, Strouse, Sweat, Voorhees, Ward,
Wood-58.

Mr. SCHENCK then offered this resolution:

from the fifth district of the State of Maryland, having Resolved, That BENJAMIN G. HARRIS, a Representative spoken words this day in debate, manifestly tending and designed to encourage the existing rebellion and the enemies of this Union, is declared to be an unworthy member of this House, and is hereby severely censured.

A motion to table the resolution was lostyeas 23, nays 80; two motions to adjourn were made and voted down; and the resolution was then adopted-yeas 98, nays 20, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, Arnold,
ter, Beaman, Blaine, F. P. Blair, Boutwell, Boyd, Broomall,
Ashley, Baily, Augustus C. Baldwin, John D. Baldwin, Bax-
Cobb, Cole, Creswell, Cor, Henry Winter Davis, Thomas T.
James S. Brown, Ambrose W. Clark, Freeman Clarke,
rington, Higby, Holman, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard,
Davis, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont, Eckley, Eliot, Eng-
John H. Hubbard, Jenckes, Julian, Kasson, Kelley, Francis
lish, Frank, Ganson, Garfield, Gooch, Grinnell, Hale, Har
W. Kellogg, Orlando Kellogg, Kernan, Loan, Marvin, Mc-
Allister, McBride, McClurg, McIndoe, Middleton, Samuel F.
Miller, Morrill, Daniel Morris, Amos Myers, Leonard Myers,
Nelson, Norton, Odell, Orth, Patterson, Pike, Pomeroy,
Price, William H. Randall, Edward H. Rollins, Schenck,
Scofield, Shannon, Sloan, Smith, Smithers, Spalding, Starr,
John B. Steele, William G. Steele, Thayer, Thomas, Tracy,
Upson, Van Valkenburgh, Ellihu B. Washburne, William
B. Washburn, Webster, Whaley, Williams, Wilder, Wilson,
Windom, Winfield, Yeaman--98.

Denisom, Eden, Eldridge, Law, Le Blond, Long, Wm. H. Mil
ler, Morrison, Pendleton, Pruyn, Samuel J. Randall, Ross,
NAYS-Messrs. James C. Allen, Ancona, Bliss, Chanler,
Strouse, Voorhees, Chilton A. White, Fernando Wood-20.

offered by Mr. COLFAX-
The question recurring upon the resolution

ment, as a substitute, which Mr. COLFAX ac-
April 14-Mr. BROOMALL offered this amend-
cepted:

Resolved, That ALEXANDER LONG, a Representative from the second district of Ohio, having, on the 8th of April, 1864, declared himself in favor of recognizing the independence and nationality of the so-called confederacy now in arms against the Union, and thereby "given aid, countenance, and encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility to the United States," is hereby expelled. Pending which, April 9, Mr. WASHBURNE, of shown himself to be in favor of a recognition of the so-called Illinois, offered this resolution :

Whereas Hon. BENJAMIN G. HARRIS, a member of the House of Representatives of the United States from the State of Maryland has on this day used the following language, to wit: "The South asked you to let them go in peace. But, no; you said you would bring them into subjection. That is not done yet, and God Almighty grant that it never may be. I hope that you will never subjugate the South." And whereas such language is treasonable, and is a gross disrespect of this House: Therefore,

Be it resolved, That the said BENJAMIN G. HARRIS be expelled from this House.

second district of Ohio, by his open declarations in the na-
Whereas ALEXANDER LONG, a Representative from the
tional Capitol and publications in the city of New York, has

confederacy now trying to establish itself upon the ruins of
in that destructive purpose-aid to avowed traitors in cre-
our country, thereby giving aid and comfort to the enemy
ating an illegal government within our borders-comfort to
them by assurances of their success, and affirmations of the
justice of their cause; and whereas such conduct is at the
oath of office and his duty as a member of this body: There-
same time evidence of disloyalty and inconsistent with his
fore,

Resolved, That the said ALEXANDER LONG, a Representa
tive from the second district of Ohio, be, and he is hereby,
declared to be an unworthy member of the House of Repre-
sentatives.

Which was rejected-yeas 84, nays 58, (two to the said ALEXANDER LONG during the session of the thirds being required :) Resolved, That the Speaker shall read these resolutions

YEAS-Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, Arnold,

House.

Mr. Cox moved to lay the preamble and reso

lution on the table; which was disagreed to- | Randall, William H. Randall, Robi: son, Rogers, James &

|