spective claims of the United States and Great Britain should be definitely settled, and that said territory may no longer than need be remain subject to the evil consequences of the divided allegiance of its American and British population, and of the confusion and conflict of national jurisdictions, dangerous to the cherished peace and good understanding of the two countries: "With a view, therefore, that steps be taken for the abrogation of the said convention of the sixth of August, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-seven, in the mode prescribed in its second article, and that the attention of the governments of both countries may be the more earnestly and immediately directed to the renewed efforts for the settlement of all their differences and disputes in respect to said territory.' Also, to add the following proviso: "Provided, however, That, in order to afford ample time and opportunity for the amicable settlement and adjustment of all their differences and disputes in respect to said territory, said notice ought not to be given till after the close of the present session of Congress.' "Mr. Bowlin suggested that the committee had already voted on the amendment, and that it was not, therefore, in order. "The Chairman. 'Not in the same words.' "The question on the first and last of these amendments was taken, and they were rejected. On the other one no question was taken; but whether it was withdrawn or overlooked, in the great confusion of the hall, the reporter can not say. "Mr. Ramsey now moved to strike out all after the word resolved,' and insert that the Oregon Question is no longer a subject of negotiation or compromise.' "Tellers were ordered, and ten members passed between them, amid shouts of laughter, cries of 54° 40' forever,' clapping of hands, and stamping of feet, which the chairman was some time in suppressing; and the negative vote was then taken, and stood 146. So the amendment was rejected." The record does not furnish the names of the ten who voted in the affirmative, but we give them as follows: Alexander Ramsey, of Pennsylvania! Archibald Yell, of Arkansas!! William Sawyer, of Ohio!!! Joseph B. Hoge, of Illinois !!!! Robert Smith, of Illinois !!!!! Stephen A. Douglas, of Illinois !!!!!! "Mr. Tredway offered an amendment, providing for the termination of the convention at the end of two years after notice, &c. "The Chair. It is a substitute, and not in order.' "Mr. Schenck offered an amendment to the original resolution. 'It was,' he said, 'the same as the first clause of Mr. Dargan's proposition, but striking out the words "and compromise," &c. "The amendment was read as follows: "That the differences existing between the government of the United States and the government of Great Britain, in re lation to the Oregon Territory, are still the subject of honorable negotiation, and should by that means be adjusted.' "Tellers (Messrs. Douglas and M'Dowell) were appointed, and the vote was taken (amid very great confusion) and announced-first, the reporter understood, as ayes 102, noes 99, and then as ayes 101, noes 99. So the amendment was agreed to. But some dissatisfaction appeared to exist, and a new count was called for. "Mr. Douglas (one of the tellers) was understood to say that some difficulty had arisen; the members having passed through very rapidly, a mistake might possibly have occurred; but he entertained no doubt that the vote, as reported, was correct. "The chairman ordered another count. "Mr. Rhett. Did not the chairman distinctly announce that the amendment was carried?" "The chairman assented. "Mr. Rhett. Then I object to the vote being again taken.' "The Chairman. The tellers say that some difficulty had arisen, and some mistake may have occurred.' "The chair, therefore, ordered a new count. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Douglas] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McDowell] will be pleased again to act as tellers.' "Mr. Schenck suggested that it was, he believed, the rule (or practice), that tellers should be appointed from different sides of the House. "The Chairman. The chair has no objection; and, therefore, appoints the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Schenck] himself, and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Chapman], tellers.' "So Mr. Schenck took up his line of march from the remote part of the hall in which his quarters lie, and posted himself at the center aisle. "Mr. John H. Ewing inquired whether the chairman had the right to order a new vote on a question which he had already declared to have been decided. "[Several voices: No debate.'] "Mr. Ewing. It is a question of order. When the question was taken, and the chairman had announced his decision, there was an end of it.' "The Chairman. If the gentleman wishes to appeal, he has the right to do so.' "Mr. Ewing declined to appeal; though, he said, he supposed it was the only way in which the question could be reached. "Mr. Schenck. 'I appeal. I understand that the proposition was carried, and that it was distinctly announced so. If the chairman now says that another count can be taken, I appeal from the decision.' "The Chairman. 'Certainly the chair had announced that the question was decided in the affirmative. The tellers expressed doubt on the subject. They say it is possible that a miscount may have taken place, as they had some difficulty; and, under these circumstances, the chair ordered a recount.' "Mr. Rhett. I think the chairman has erred in this particular. He had no right—' "[Great confusion, and calls to order.] "Mr. Grider. 'I should like the tellers to state whether they had doubts, and what was the extent of their doubts.' "Mr. Roberts submitted that tellers having been again ordered, it was too late to take an appeal. "Mr. Pendleton desired information as to a matter of fact. 'In the first annunciation of the affirmative vote by the tellers, was it not formally declared that the vote was 102? It was now 101.' "Mr. Douglas explained that one member changed his vote. "Mr. Vinton desired to be informed whether both of the tellers counted, and whether there was any difficulty about the count. It was, he believed, the duty of both to count, and then to report the result to each other before reporting it to the committee. “Mr. Henley made a remark (of which nothing was heard by the reporter). "Mr. Douglas said that both the tellers did count. The members passed between them very rapidly, and there might possibly have been a miscount; but he believed the report, as made to the House, was accurate. "The chairman was about to take the question on the appeal. "Mr. Yancey asked what the decision was from which an appeal had been taken. "The chairman enlightened him. "Mr. Bayly rose for information as to a matter of fact. He had understood the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Douglas] to state that the tellers had agreed, and he believed the count to be correct. Was this so? "The chairman again invited members to take their seats. "Mr. Ashmun moved, that when the chair appointed tellers, one should be taken from each side of the House. "The chairman again explained what his decision was, and that there had been doubt on the part of the tellers. "Mr. Bayly. Have the tellers said so?" "Mr. Collamer. 'We do not understand them to have said so.' "Mr. Schenck. 'Do the tellers undertake to say that the count was inaccurate? Has not the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Douglas] said he believed it to be correct?" "The Chairman. Both say that there was great confusion, and that a mistake might have occurred.' "Mr. Schenck. 'I ask again, whether the gentleman from Illinois, one of the tellers, did not say that, notwithstanding the confusion, he believed the count to be accurate?" "The chairman did not reply. "Therefore,' continued Mr. Schenck, 'on this mere possibility, the chair orders a recount.' "The question was then taken, 'Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the committee? and was decided in the negative, ayes 90, noes 108. So the decision of the chair was reversed; and therefore the amendment of Mr. Schenck was declared to have been agreed to. "Mr. W. Hunt asked for the reading of the resolution as now amended; and it was read. "Mr. Schenck moved that the committee rise and report the resolution. "[Many voices: 'Oh, no, you can't do that.'] "The Chairman. There are other amendments.' "Mr. Schenck withdrew his motion. "The chairman said, the question would now be on the substitute of the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Black], to the substitute of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Dromgoole]. "Both propositions were read. "Mr. G. S. Houston inquired whether it would be in order to amend the proposition of the gentleman from Virginia before the question on the substitute of the gentleman from South Carolina was put. "The chairman answered affirmatively. "Mr. Houston proposed, then, to modify it, by inserting in the second section, after the word months,' the words 'conformably to the second article of said treaty of the 6th of August, 1827;' and also to amend it by striking out the appropriation in the third section, and throwing the latter clause thereof into the form of a proviso. Rejected. "Mr. Houston called for a division. "Mr. Thurman moved to strike out the third section of Mr. Dromgoole's substitute. "Mr. Haralson said that the amendment was not in order, because the vote had not been taken on the amendment of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Houston]. 6 "The Chairman. Did the gentleman call for a division?" "Mr. Houston said he had done so. There was a misunderstanding, he thought, as to the question before the committee. "Tellers were refused; but a division of the question, on the suggestion of Mr. Boyd, was ordered. "Mr. Seaborn Jones called for the reading of the resolution and amendment. Read. "The question was then taken, and the two amendments were rejected, seriatim. "Mr. Adams, of Mississippi, proposed to offer an amendment, |