to pass a law at the next session, to operate upon their successors.

Mr. SMITH, of Maryland submitted to the gentleman from Kentucky, whether it would not be better to progress with the unfinished business before the House, and get through with that before they undertook any other. He was much afraid, if a different course was pursued, the House would not get through with the appropriation bill this session. Notwithstanding his friend from North Carolina supposed there would be no discussion on the compensation bill, Mr. S. said he would find that this would give rise to a great deal of discussion, and that amendment after amendment would be proposed to the bill. It was but fair to the Committee of Ways and Means to go on and finish their bill first.

Mr. CAMBRELENG was in favor of taking up these bills, and discussing them and he was in favor of passing the bill for reducing the pay of the members of Congress, which had been particularly referred to. When the pay was raised, five or six years ago, scarcely any reason was assigned for it, or could be; and he was in favor of restoring the practice of the Government for twenty or thirty years preceding.

Mr. WRIGHT denied that the pay of members had been raised without reason, and made a number of remarks against taking up this subject now. If gentlemen thought their services were not worth eight dollars, let them give place to others, or display their philanthropy by bestowing on charitable objects what they received beyond their merits. The gentleman from New York could see no reason for the late increase of the pay of members; but, Mr. W. said, he could give him twenty reasons for it. Do the people now ask Congress to reduce their own compensation? Why disturb the nation at this moment on this subject? How ridiculous was it for the members to say their services are not worth eight dollars per day, at the same time that compensation at the rate of twenty or thirty dollars per day was given to our judges. The efforts, or pretended efforts, to diminish the expenses of the Government, Mr. W. said, all had an eye to popularity. [For this remark Mr. W. was called to order.] He said he had done nothing more than state conclusions, which naturally flowed from the premises. For himself, he said he lost a fortune by becoming a member of Congress, being at the time he was first elected engaged in a practice worth two thousand pounds per year. He briefly reviewed his public life, the former compensation law, the clamor against it, and the manner in which he had met it, by quoting the pay of the judges, who performed duties much less laborious, and much less momentous than those of a member of Congress. Mr. W. concluded by saying, that those who were for reducing their own pay, must follow very literally the scriptural injunction, to humble themselves that they may be exalted."

Mr. WALKER, of North Carolina, considered the subject now proposed to be acted upon, to be of such importance that it ought not to be acted upon out of the usual course of things, which was to

APRIL, 1822.

discuss it in Committee of the Whole. In a matter of so much solemnity, he said, he was opposed to acting with precipitation.

The question was then taken on discharging the Committee of the Whole from the consideration of the retrenchment bills, and decided in the affirmative-yeas 105, nays 38.

The three bills being thus before the House, On motion of Mr. HARDIN, that for reducing the compensation of Senators and Representatives in Congress was first read.

[This bill provides that the daily pay of the members of the Senate, from and after the present session of Congress, shall be six dollars, and the like allowance shall be made for every twenty miles travel to and from Congress. The bill contains like provisions as to the members of the House of Representatives; and also proposes considerably to reduce the compensation of the officers of both Houses.]

Mr. McCoy moved to lay these bills on the table, in order to take up the bill, in the discussion of which the House had been engaged for several days. The motion was negatived.

Mr. McLANE made a motion to amend the bill so as to make it take effect from and after the present session, instead of from and after the passage of this law. But, after some conversation on the amendment, between Messrs. WALWORTH, McLANE, SMITH, of Maryland, and TRACY, Mr. McLANE withdrew his motion for amendment.

Mr. EDWARDS, of North Carolina, moved to strike out, from the part of the bill which relates to the pay of the Senate, that part which provides that "no daily allowance shall ever be made, in case of inability to attend, except when the Senate shall be in session." This proviso he considered unreasonable and disrespectful to the Senate. Mr. MALLARY here renewed the motion for the previous question.

The House did not sustain the motion.

Mr. HARDIN then replied to the objections of Mr. EDWARDS to the particular clause of the bill referred to, and stated the object of this proviso to be to prevent members from hanging on here after the end of the session, on the plea of sickness, and claiming and receiving pay therefor. Another proviso in the bill was intended to prevent members remaining at home, and pleading sickness, and receiving daily pay while at home; which he understood had been done in more than one instance.

Mr. EDWARDS said, that he and the gentleman did not in the least differ, it appeared, as to what the bill ought to be, but he thought the phraseology went further than that.

After some further conversation, as to the proper phraseology of the amendment

Mr. Cook said he was opposed to the amendment in any shape. He could not consent to vote for any proposition avowedly placed on so humiliating a ground as that a man, chosen by the freemen of the country to represent them, would debase himself so far as to remain in this city after the adjournment of Congress, for the purpose of drawing daily pay during his stay, and getting

then a certificate from some quack or other, in order to get his account passed. There might be cases of persons taken sick while attending here, and who could not get home. In such cases, Mr. C. contended, reason and justice required that their expenses should be defrayed by the public.

Mr. WRIGHT also opposed the amendment on nearly the same grounds, and because, if any man was mean enough to counterfeit sickness to get pay, he would, after this amendment was adopted, have only to go some thirty or forty miles from the city, and thus appear to be taken sick on the road. But he did not believe that any such cases had occurred as those which the gentleman from Kentucky had alluded to.

Mr. HARDIN replied. If the House was disposed to allow to a man daily pay after a session was ended, whether sick or pretending to be sick, the gentlemen were right, and the bill and amendment were wrong. In reply to the gentleman from Illinois, who would not vote for the amendment because it supposed the possibility of corruption in this House, Mr. H. said the gentleman had altered his language since the first part of this session. Then, we were to act from time to time by wholesale, not by retail, as now proposed, to prevent corruption from getting into the House. Whilst he did not believe that the House was composed of corruptible men, he thought they were much like the rest of mankind; in regard to whom it had been always thought best not to place them in the way of temptation.

Mr. MILNOR was opposed as well to the proviso as to the amendment. It went upon a principle new to our laws, which now recognise the principle that those who are taken sick whilst in the public employ should be supported as though in health. It was hard enough, he said, for a man who is in the service of the country to be taken sick, and suffer the pains of sickness, without being obliged to pay the cost of it out of his private purse. Mr. M. said, that, when formerly in Congress, he had been a member of the Committee of Accounts, before whom all the accounts of the members pass in review. He never had known, during the years he served in that capacity, a single instance of any man demanding pay for any portion of time that he had been confined at home by sickness; and he never heard of such a thing until it was suggested this morning by the gentleman from Kentucky. He could not believe that such a case ever did exist. Sure he was, that, during the time he was a member of the Committee of Accounts, no such thing did occur.

The question on Mr. EDWARDS's motion was then determined in the affirmative.

H. OF R.

tem of retrenchment of expenses, which he sincerely believed to be necessary, objected to the proposed reduction of the mileage. Those who travelled far on horseback could not perform a long journey at the rate of forty miles a day, unless happily blessed with the constitution and vigor of the gentleman from Maryland. For those who had nothing to do but to throw themselves on board a steamboat and go to sleep, to be sure, the proposed allowance might be sufficient, but it was very different in regard to those who travel by hard journeys from the interior.

Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, said he always had thought the mileage too high; and proposed to his colleague to move thirty instead of forty miles, as he had proposed, for six dollars.

This modification was accepted by Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. HARDIN said it was not the object of the Committee of Retrenchment to pull down the established order of things, but to reduce them, in consequence of the straitened finances of the country, to what they were eight or ten years ago. He was therefore opposed to this motion; and he called upon gentlemen not to be led away by the motion of the gentleman from Maryland, who was, as far as he could collect his views, opposed to the whole system of retrenchment. He did verily believe, he said, that nothing could save the nation from direct taxation but a retrenchment of the public expenses, and that the members of the House ought, in setting about it, to begin with themselves. He was therefore opposed to any amendment which might, like this, have a tendency to defeat the bill.

Mr. NELSON, of Virginia, said that, though the House had refused to sanction the previous question, it seemed that it was to be imposed in effect by the course which he had indicated. No amendment was to be allowed to the bill, and no objection was to be heard to it, because gentlemen were opposed to it in principle. Now, Mr. N. said, to show that he was as friendly to retrenchment as the gentleman from Kentucky, he now gave notice that he should move an amendment to the bill, which he was surprised the gentleman himself had not incorporated in it, to make this bill take effect from the commencement of this Congress.

Mr. WRIGHT moved to amend the bill so as to reduce the mileage from six dollars for every twenty miles travelling to six dollars for every forty miles; and made a number of observations in support of the motion.

Mr. VAN WYCK again required the previous question, to prevent unnecessary consumption of time; but the House refused to sustain the call.

bers were supposed to expend that much? Not so, but on the principle of allowing for time consumed as well as for expenses incurred. Mr. B. compared this allowance with what was made to officers of the Army, &c., to show that it ought not to be reduced as proposed.

APRIL, 1822.

dollars for every thirty miles' travelling, was then taken and decided as follows, in the affirmativeyeas 83, nays 74.

YEAS-Messrs. Allen of Massachusetts, Archer, Barber of Connecticut, Bateman, Bayly, Borland, Brown, Buchanan, Burrows, Cambreleng, Campbell of New York, Cassedy, Condict, Conner, Cook, Cushman, Darlington, Denison, Durfee, Eddy, Edwards of Connecticut, Edwards of Pennsylvania, Eustis, Findlay, Fuller, Gross, Hawks, Hemphill, Hooks, Hubbard, F. Johnson, Kent, Keyes, Lathrop, Litchfield, McCarty, McSherry, Matlack, Mattocks, Mercer, Mil

differed.

Mr. WRIGHT spoke at some length in support of his amendment. The principal argument he urged in favor of his motion was, that the expense and difficulty of travelling had been lessened in a much greater degree than it was now proposed to reduce the allowance for mileage, and that, as it now stood, members residing at a distance drew a much greater sum of money for their attendance on Congress than any others.

Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, was in favor of this reduction, that the compensation to members might, in some degree, be equalized. Under the present system, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. HARDIN) got, in a session of ninety days, for his pay and mileage, $400 more, at six dollars per day, than he (Mr. S) would receive at eight dollars per day.

Mr. SERGEANT assigned the reason why he was opposed to the amendment. He went upon the ground that the original principle, upon which the pay and mileage were fixed at the same rate, was, that the allowance for mileage should bear the same relation to the expenses of travelling that the daily pay did to the expenses of living here. In speaking to this point, Mr. S. said it was

one which in no manner concerned him personally; but he wished it to be settled on just principles.

Mr. TRACY declared himself in favor of this bill as a part of a system of retrenchment, in regard to which the House would find its course much more clear and easy after passing this bill. With regard to the particular amendment now proposed, he said he would vote for it, being favorable to it on principle, if he did not believe the adoption of it would defeat the bill. He begged, therefore, of gentlemen who were really favorable to the bill, not to vote for such amendments to it as were calculated to make it obnoxious.

Mr. WOODCOCK could not understand why his colleague should so far distrust the House as to refuse to do what was right lest the House should hereafter do what was wrong. He had never discovered such a perversity of disposition in the House; and he should vote on this proposition with reference to its real merits, as it appeared to him other gentlemen ought also to do.

The question on amending the bill so as to reduce the allowance to members for mileage to six

Virginia, Morgan, Murray, Neale, Nelson of Maryolina, Montgomery, Moore of Pennsylvania, Moore of land, Nelson of Virginia, Patterson of Pennsylvania, Phillips, Pierson, Pitcher, Rich, Rochester, Rogers, Ruggles, Russ, Russell, Sanders, Sawyer, Sloan, S. Smith, Sterling of Connecticut, Sterling of New York, Stoddard, Swan, Taylor, Tod, Tomlinson, Upham, Van Rensselaer, Van Wyck, Walworth, Warfield, White, Williams of Virginia, Wood, Woodcock, Wor man, and Wright.

NAYS-Messrs. Alexander, Baldwin, Ball, Bassett, Baylies, Blackledge, Blair, Breckenridge, Butler, Campbell of Ohio, Cannon, Chambers, Cocke, Crafts, Crudup, Cuthbert, Dane, Dickinson, Dwight, Edwards of North Carolina, Farrelly, Floyd, Garnett, Gebhard, Gilmer, Gorham, Hall, Hardin, Harvey, Hendricks, Hill, Hobart, Holcombe, Jackson, J. Ť. Johnson, Kirkland, Leftwich, Long, Lowndes, McCoy, McLane, Mallary, Matson, Metcalfe, Moore of Alabama, New, Newton, Overstreet, Plumer of New Hampshire, Plumer of Pennsylvania, Poinsett, Rankin, Rhea, Ross, Scott, Sergeant, Arthur Smith, W. Smith, Alexander Smyth, J. S. Smith, Stevenson, Stewart, Tatnall, Thompson, Tracy, Tucker of South Carolina, Tucker of Virginia, Vance, Walker, Whipple, Whitman, Williams of North Carolina, Williamson, and Woodson.

So the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. FLOYD then moved to amend the bill so as

to postpone its operation to the first day of July

next.

On this motion a desultory debate took place, occasionally verging on the main principle of the bill, and incidentally involving the question whether or not the proposed reduction was a violation of the contract under which the members have attended; in which Messrs. SMITH, of Maryland, GORHAM, WRIGHT, WARFIELD, SMYTH, OVERSTREET, WHIPPLE, WOODSON, MITCHELL, of South Carolina, and BALDWIN, took part.

On motion of Mr. BALDWIN, the yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. NELSON, of Virginia, moved to amend the amendment so as to provide that the reduction should take effect from the first day of July last.

Mr. MITCHELL, of South Carolina, called for the yeas and nays, which were thereupon ordered, and the motion was supported by Mr. NELSON, of Virginia, and opposed by Mr. EDWARDS, of North Carolina, Mr. RHEA, Mr. FLOYD, and Mr. WRIGHT, but, before any question was taken thereon

Mr. BUTLER moved to recommit the bill to the committee that reported it, with instructions to report at the next session of Congress whether

there are any officers in the Government whose services can be dispensed with without injury to the public service, and also whether there are any officers in the Government whose salaries may be

♦ reduced.

Mr. BUTLER Supported his motion at considerable length, and Mr. Ross opposed it.

Mr. TRACY called for the yeas and nays, which were taken as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Ball, Barstow, Bayly, Blackledge, Butler, Cannon, Cushman, Fuller, Gist, Gorham, Hooks, Lathrop, Long, McCarty, McNeill, Milnor, Newton, Rankin, Scott, Williamson, and Wilson-21. NAYS-Messrs. Alexander, Archer, Baldwin, Barber of Connecticut, Barber of Ohio, Bassett, Bateman, Baylies, Bigelow, Blair, Borland, Breckenridge, Brown, Buchanan, Burrows, Burton, Cambreleng, Campbell of New York, Campbell of Ohio, Cassedy, Chambers, Cocke, Condict, Conner, Cook, Crafts, Crudup, Cuthbert, Dane, Darlington, Denison, Durfee, Dwight, Eddy, Edwards of Connecticut, Edwards of North Carolina, Eustis, Farrelly, Findlay, Floyd, Garnett, Gebhard, Gross, Hall, Hardin, Hawks, Hendricks, Hill, Hobart, Holcombe, Hubbard, Jackson, F. Johnson, J. T. Johnson, Kent, Keyes, Kirkland, Leftwich, Litchfield, McCoy, McDuffie, McLane, MeSherry, Mallary, Matlack, Matson, Mattocks, Mercer, Metcalfe, Mitchell of Pennsylvania, Mitchell of South Carolina, Moore of Pennsylvania, Moore of Virginia, Moore of Alabama, Morgan, Murray, Neale, Nelson of Maryland, Nelson of Virginia, New, Overstreet, Patterson of Pennsylvania, Phillips, Pierson, Pitcher, Plumer of New Hampshire, Plumer of Pennsylvania, Poinsett, Rhea, Rich, Rochester, Rogers, Ross, Ruggles, Russ, Russell, Sanders, Sawyer, Sergeant, Sloan, S. Smith, Arthur Smith, W. Smith, Alexander Smyth, J. S. Smith, Sterling of Connecticut, Stevenson, Stewart, Stoddard, Swan,.Tatnall, Taylor, Thompson, Tod, Tomlinson, Tracy, Tucker of South Carolina, Tucker of Virginia, Upham, Vance, Van Rensselaer, Van Wyck, Walker, Walworth, Warfield, Whipple, Whitman, Williams of North Carolina, Williams of Virginia, Wood, Woodcock, Woodson, Worman, and Wright-134.

The question was then put on agreeing to the amendment proposed by Mr. NELSON, of Virginia, and was also decided in the negative-yeas 35, nays 121, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Barber of Connecticut, Buchanan, Burrows, Butler, Campbell of New York, Cassedy, Conner, Eddy, Eustis, Gebhard, Hawks, Hooks, Hubbard, Keyes, McCarty, Matlack, Mattocks, Mitchell of South Carolina, Nelson of Maryland, Nelson of Virginia, Pierson, Pitcher, Rich, Rochester, Ross, Russ, Russell, Sterling of Connecticut, Stoddard, Swan, Taylor, Walworth, Warfield, Williamson, and Woodcock.

NAYS-Messrs. Alexander, Archer, Baldwin, Ball, Barber of Ohio, Barstow, Bassett, Bateman, Baylies, Bayly, Bigelow, Blair, Borland, Breckenridge, Brown, Burton, Cambreleng, Campbell of Ohio, Cannon, Chambers, Cocke, Condict, Cook, Crafts, Crudup, Cushman, Cuthbert, Dane, Darlington, Denison, Durfee, Dwight, Edwards of Connecticut, Edwards of Pennsylvania, Edwards of North Carolina, Farrelly, Findlay, Floyd, Fuller, Garnett, Gilmer, Gist, Gorham, Gross, Hall, Hardin, Harvey, Hemphill, Hendricks, Hill, Holcombe, Jackson, F. Johnson, J. T.

H. OF R.

Johnson, Kent, Kirkland, Lathrop, Leftwich, Litchfield, Long, McCoy, McDuffie, McLane, McNeill, McSherry, Mallary, Mercer, Metcalfe, Milnor, Mitchell of Pennsylvania, Montgomery, Moore of Pennsylva nia, Moore of Virginia, Moore of Alabama, Morgan, Murray, Neale, Newton, Overstreet, Patterson of Pennsylvania, Phillips, Plumer of New Hampshire, Rogers, Ruggles, Sanders, Scott, Sergeant, Sloan, Plumer of Pennsylvania, Poinsett, Rankin, Rhea, S. Smith, Arthur Smith, W. Smith, Alexander Smyth, J. S. Smith, Stevenson, Stewart, Tatnall, Thompson, Tod, Tomlinson, Tracy, Tucker of South Carolina, Tucker of Virginia, Upham, Vance, Van Rensselaer, Van Wyck, Walker, Whipple, White, Whitman, Williams of North Carolina, Williams of Virginia, Wilson, Wood, Woodson, Worman, and Wright.

The original motion to amend by Mr. FLOYD, debate, by yeas and nays, as follows: was next in order, and was taken, without further

YEAS-Messrs. Alexander, Allen of Massachusetts, Archer, Baldwin, Ball, Barber of Ohio, Barstow, Bassett, Bateman, Baylies, Bayly, Bigelow, Blackledge, Blair, Breckenridge, Brown, Burton, Cambreleng, Campbell of Ohio, Cannon, Chambers, Cocke, Cook, Crafts, Crudup, Cushman, Cuthbert, Dane, Darlington, Durfee, Dwight, Edwards of North Carolina, Eustis, Farrelly, Findlay, Floyd, Fuller, Garnett, Gist, Gorham, Hall, Hardin, Hemphill, Hill, Hobart, Holcombe, Jackson, J. T. Johnson, Kent, Kirkland, Lathrop, Leftwich, Litchfield, Long, McCoy, McDuffie, McLane, McNeill, Mallary, Mercer, Metcalfe, Milnor, Mitchell of Pennsylvania, Montgomery, Moore of Pennsylvania, Moore of Alabama, Morgan, Neale, Newton, Overstreet, Patterson of Pennsylvania, Plumer of Pennsylvania, Poinsett, Rankin, Rhea, Rogers, Ruggles, Russ, Sanders, Scott, Sloan, Arthur Smith, W. Smith, Alex. Smyth, J. S. Smith, Stevenson, Stewart, Tatnall, Thompson, Tod, Tucker of South Carolina, Upham, Vance, Van Rensselaer, Van Wyck, Walker, White, Whitman, Williams of North Carolina, Williams of Virginia, Williamson, Wilson, Wood, Woodson, and Wright-105.

NAYS-Messrs. Barber of Connecticut, Borland, Buchanan, Burrows, Butler, Campbell of New York, Cassedy, Condict, Conner, Denison, Eddy, Edwards Gilmer, Gross, Harvey, Hawks, Hendricks, Hooks, of Connecticut, Edwards of Pennsylvania, Gebhard, Hubbard, F. Johnson, Keyes, McCarty, McSherry, Matlack, Mattocks, Mitchell of South Carolina, Moore of Virginia, Murray, Nelson of Maryland, Nelson of Virginia, Phillips, Pierson, Pitcher, Plumer of New Hampshire, Rich, Rochester, Ross, Russell, Sawyer, Sergeant, S. Smith, Sterling of Connecticut, Stoddard, Swan, Taylor, Tomlinson, Tracy, Tucker of Virginia, Walworth, Warfield, Whipple, Woodcock, and Worman-55.

So the amendment was agreed, to and the House then adjourned.

Mr. RANKIN, from the committee of conference appointed on the part of this House, to attend a conference with the conferees appointed on the part of the Senate upon the subject-matter of the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment proposed by this House to the amendments of the Senate to the bill of this House entitled "An act to provide for paying to the State of Missouri three per cent. on the net proceeds arising from the sale of the public lands within the same,' made a report, which was ordered to lie on the table.

The amendment proposed by the Senate to the bill, entitled "An act restoring to the ship Diana the privileges of a sea-letter vessel," was read, and concurred in by the House.

The engrossed bill for the relief of Alzira Dibrel and Sophia Hancock was read a third time and passed.

The following bills from the Senate were twice read and referred to their appropriate committees, viz: A bill for the better organization of the district court of the United States within the State of Louisiana; a bill for the relief of Clarence Mulford; a bill for the benefit of Thomas Pendergrass; a bill for the relief of John Baptist Belfort and others; and a bill for the relief of David Cooper. A Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, as follows:

To the House of Representatives:

In compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 29th January last, requesting

the President of the United States to cause to be communicated to that House certain information relative to the claim made by Jonathan Carver to certain lands within the United States near the falls of St. Anthony, I now transmit a report of the Secretary of the Treasury, which, with the accompanying documents, contain all the information on this subject, in the possession of the Executive.

JAMES MONROE.

WASHINGTON, April 23, 1822.

The Message and report were referred to the Committee on the Public Lands.

Mr. SAWYER gave notice that he should, on tomorrow, move for the consideration of a resolution, heretofore submitted by him, convoking the next Congress on the first Monday of November

next.

Mr. A. SMYTH moved a resolution, the object of which was, that, from and after the commencement of the next week, after sitting from ten until ten minutes after four o'clock, there should be a recess of the House, on each day, from four until half past five o'clock; and that a motion to adjourn should not then be in order until seven o'clock.

Mr. HARDIN remarked that, as far as his observation extended, the members were not likely, about the hour designated for reassembling, to be in the best possible condition for doing business.

The previous question of consideration being required, was taken, and decided in the negative by a large majority. So the House refused to consider the resolution.

APRIL, 1822.

The motion was agreed to.

On motion of Mr. SMITH of Maryland, Mr. RHEA, and Mr. CAMPBELL of Ohio, the Committee of Ways and Means, the Committee on Pensions and Revolutionary Claims, and the Committee on Private Land Claims, were respectively discharged, also, from the petitions referred to them.

Mr. HEMPHILL rose and said, that so much of the money of the nation had been expended on the Cumberland road, it would not be prudent or provident to suffer it now to go to decay for want of repairs. He therefore moved to discharge the Committee of the Whole from the further consideration of the bill providing for the erection of turnpike gates on the Cumberland road, and that the same be laid on the table, that he might have an opportunity of asking the House to act on it at a future day.

The motion was agreed to.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the Secretary of War, stating that the information which the President of the United States is requested to furnish by a resolution of the House, adopted on the 8th of January last, cannot be prepared in time to be laid before the House before the next session of Congress; which was read, and ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. BUCHANAN, from the select committee. to whom that subject was referred, made a report respecting certain fines imposed on the militia of the State of Pennsylvania, concluding with the following resolution, which was ordered to lie on the table:

Resolved, That the uncollected militia fines due from delinquents in the State of Pennsylvania, which

have been assessed by courts martial, and all fines collected by the late or present marshals of Pennsylvania, or their deputies, which have not been paid into the Treasury of the United States, or applied to the payment of expenses of courts martial, be transferred to the State of Pennsylvania, with full power to collect the same.

PUBLIC BUILDINGS.

A message was received from the Senate, returning the bill which originated in the House of Representatives, making appropriations for the public buildings, with an amendment to add $1,250 to graduate and improve the public grounds around the Capitol.

Mr. COCKE moved that the House disagree to the amendment of the Senate. The motion was supported by Mr. VAN WYCK and the mover, and opposed by Mr. TAYLOR.

Mr. BLACKLEDGE remarked, that the sum which