MAY 31, 1836.] Post Office Department. [H. of R. it is judicious and desirable. Instead of adding to the tax now imposed upon intercourse among the people through the mail, (as the proposition of the Post Office Committee would,) it would lessen it between all points, and lighten the burden of postage now borne by the people. Such a measure I am entirely in favor of thoughts, in reference to this or any other subject, in order to square with the gentleman's views of statesmanship. Perhaps it is necessary that one should extend his reasoning over a State equal in territory and population, if it is to be found, with the great State of New York, in order to reach statesmanlike views that would be satisfactory to that gentleman. Or perhaps one should swell somewhat larger, and embrace a portion or the whole of some other State or States, to answer the purpose. [Yes, the whole Union, replied Mr. MANN.] The whole Union must be included, says the honorable gentleman. It may be, sir, that such is the view which that gentleman has taken; but if it be so, his "statesmanlike" views stop not at sacrificing the inter-mittee, had been quoted to prove that the reduction of ests of an entire State of this Union, without conferring upon it a single benefit in return. I claim to be governed by no such principles of statesmanship as obviously sacrifice one of these States for the benefit of the remainder, and much less for the benefit of a fractional part of the remainder. I believe it has not been pretended, it certainly has not yet been demonstrated by any gentleman, that the proposition of the Post Office Committee will operate equitably upon all the other States except Maine. I do not pretend to know what its operations will be upon either the Middle or the Western States of the Union. But I do know, sir, that from my knowledge of what its operations must and will be upon the interests of Maine-the State which I have the honor to to represent, in part, upon this floor-it is highly unsatisfactory and oppressive. Nor do I, sir, claim to act upon higher or broader views of statesmanship than are suggested by such facts and such local knowledge, if it must be so called, than are actually within my reach. I reason, as Pope says, from what I know; and "How can we reason but from what we know?" If the gentleman from New York does pretend to know the effect of this bill upon each State of the Uuion, he must know, sir, that there are no two points of any considerable business importance within the State of Maine, which will not be most prejudicially affected by the proposition or rates of postage reported by his committee. My colleague has told you the effect of it upon his section of the State. Let us take the two most prominent points of business in the State, the cities of Portland and Bangor, and it imposes an additional tax of two and one half cents upon every letter that will be in terchanged by them. The effect upon the intercourse through the mail between Bangor and Boston is the same. That upon the intercourse between Portland and Boston, Bath and Boston, and Augusta and Boston, is the same. It is an increase of postage also upon all business between Bangor and New York, and Portland and New York; and I believe every other point in the State and the city of New York. This is the result of a comparison between the law as it now stands and the proposed law of the Post Office Committee. The rates of postage as now established are far more preferable, so far as the whole State of Maine, and even so far as every part of the State, separately considered, is interested in the subject of postage. Sir, ought the interests of a whole State to be thus sacrificed to "statesmanlike" views or any other views? It can never be done by a deliberative body. Mr. S. said he was in favor of a new tariff of postage, if it could be agreed upon. He was in favor of getting rid of the quarter cent, and half cent, and six cent rates, and substituting the half dime, the dime, and a similar denomination of increase. He was in favor of the proposition which the gentleman from Massachusetts had made, and hoped the vote by which it had been adopted might not be reconsidered. So far as my own knowledge of what its operations must be extends, said Mr. S., But, sir, it has been attempted to dissuade the House against the tariff of postage now under consideration, on the ground that it will reduce the revenues of the Post Office Department to such an extent as to stop the usual yearly extension of mail facilities. And the letter of the Postmaster General, sent into the House this morning through the honorable chairman of the Post Office Com some $500,000 yearly will be effected in the revenues of the Department by this tariff, estimating it upon the revenues of the last year; while the tariff of the committee will reduce them something like $200,000. But this estimate of the Postmaster General claims to be only a hasty calculation, and pretends not to make any credit whatever to the natural and inevitable growth of the revenue of the Department. What, sir, has been this growth during the last eight years, and what has it accomplished? We have been told, that only about one year or eighteen months since, the Department was in debt over one million of dollars, from a too great extension of mail facilities, or from other causes combined therewith. We are now told, at the expiration of a year or eighteen months at farthest, that this enormous deficit has been extinguished, or is about being extinguished, but a surplus revenue is shortly to be found in the Treasury Department. This is the strength of the Department's operations within a single year, or in eighteen months at most. And is there so much cause for apprehension about the reduction of the revenues of the Department in the sum of $500,000, even though there was no natural and inevitable growth in them to offset or provide against it? Look, sir, as I before suggested, through the history of the Department for the last eight years, and mark what it has accomplished with only its own naked revenues. It has paid off all its expenditures, or nearly squared them, as we are told by the present Postmaster General; and, in the mean time, it has extended mail facilities over the whole country to over one half-yes, sir, to nearly double the amount that existed at the commencement of that period. Eight years ago, the mail transportation in stages, steamboats, sulkies, and on horseback, amounted in the yearly aggregate to about fourteen millions and five hundred thousand miles. It now amounts to nearly, if not quite, double that sum. The aggregate yearly revenue of the Department, eight years ago, was about one million seven hundred thousand dollars. The Postmaster General now estimates the revenues of the Department, per annum, at three millions of dollars. And, after making allowances for all the requisite additions of mail facilities, to be effected during the coming year, to be paid for out of the proceeds of past investments, a surplus of about two hundred thousand dollars is anticipated, at the lowest estimate. Sir, these facts demonstrate that there is no cause for apprehension on account of reduction in the revenue of the Department by the proposition of the gentleman from Massachusetts. I repeat, that the estimated reduction by it of the Postmaster General's letter makes no account of the certain addition of revenue to the Department, arising from the constant increase of business throughout the country, and beyond the extension of mail facilities. I should like very much to see the other side of this account worked out upon paper by the present shrewd, intelligent, and talented Postmaster General. I should like to see his figures, demonstrating what the growth of revenue in the Department would be over and above the usual expenditures and mail extension, and what it can bear, running the calculation through a series of years to come, as he would know well how to do, and not confining it to the operations of a single year. Where the annual increase of revenue is clearly out of proportion to the necessary increase of mail extension, it is evident that every year will admit of further diminution of that revenue, without curtailing the usual extension of mail facilities. Now, sir, it is this state of things in the Post Office Department that I would take advantage of, and by it reduce the rates of postage throughout the land. And even though such a reduction should operate to make the Post Office Department, to some extent, an annual charge upon the Treasury of the nation, I would still advocate it as a matter of both justice and expediency under the existing condition of the Treasury of this Government. As a matter of justice, the Federal Government can afford to contribute to the support of the Department. Its services for the Government, if taxed as individuals are taxed for its services, would exceed a million of dollars per annum. Why, then, fear to throw the Department upon the national Treasury to some extent, if the proposed measure will so operate? which I do not believe. Sir, I am in favor of a reduction of the postages now imposed upon the people. The time has come when the people are enti tled to relief from the burdens imposed upon them by the Federal Government; and the time has not only come for this, but for the rising of a feeling of general complaint that the legislation of the Federal Government operates to gather into the Treasury large masses of funds that can serve no great or good purpose, and produces only excitement and distraction throughout the country. Sir, I am prepared to lighten this taxation upon the people in any and in every way that presents an opportunity for it; and I have none of the apprehensions of other gentlemen of bad effects resulting from the reduction of postage now proposed; and first, because I have no faith in the predictions that the Post Office Depart iment will be in any degree embarrassed by it; and next, because, if that should be the case, the federal Treasury is competent to contribute relief, without adding one cent to the taxes now gathered from the people. Mr. Speaker, I will detain the House only to add a word of admonition to those gentlemen who prefer the law as it now stands, to the proposed law of the committee. If they wish to secure their object, and retain the law as it now stands, let them beware of voting in favor of reconsidering the motion of the gentleman from Massachusetts. For if that motion be reconsidered, I believe there will be a combination of feeling and interest--of feeling in some quarter in favor of changing the rates of postage- from considerations connected with the currency, perhaps, and of interest elsewhere, arising from local advantages which may be foreseen, sufficient to sustain and carry the proposition of the committee, unequal as it is upon some of the States. the motion to reconsider be negatived, the question will stand between the law as it now is, and the tariff proposed by the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. LAWRENCE.] I am, individually, in favor of this last proposition. But if this cannot be adopted, I hope to avoid the proposition of the committee, and retain the tariff of postage now provided by law. If After some further remarks from Messrs. HUNT, MILLER, VINTON, REED, LAWRENCE, WILLIAMS of North Carolina, BRIGGS, JOHNSON of Louisiana, DENNY, MANN of New York, GILLET, PEARCE of Rhode Island, and EVERETT, Mr. PHILLIPS asked for the yeas and nays; which were ordered. [MAY 31, 1836. Mr. GRENNELL moved a call of the House. Lost. The question on reconsidering was then taken, and decided in the negative: Yeas 66, nays 81. So the motion to reconsider was lost. The question then recurred on agreeing to the section as amended. Mr. LAWRENCE moved to amend the first clause of the same section by inserting 1837, instead of 1836. Agreed to. After some remarks by Messrs. PHILLIPS, VANDERPOEL, and DUNLAP, the question was taken on concurring with the Committee of the Whole in the section as amended, and it was decided in the negative: Yeas 65, nays 91. So the House refused to concur, and the clause was stricken out. Mr. ADAMS moved to reconsider the vote by which the following amendment of the Committee of the Whole was concurred in: "SEC. 5. That the Treasurer of the United States shall give receipts for all moneys received by him to the credit of the appropriation." Strike out the words in italics, and insert in lieu thereof the following: "duly deposited to his credit in bank." Mr. ADAMS addressed the House for some time in support of his motion, and in opposition to the amend Mr. McKAY thought all objection might be obviated by inserting another section or proviso, that the banks in which the money might be deposited should be selected by the Treasurer, under the direction of the Postmaster General. Mr. MANN, of New York, said he saw no objection to restoring the clause as it was originally reported, and he hoped the motion to reconsider would prevail. Mr. ADAMS did not approve of the suggestion of the gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. McKAY] The motion to reconsider was then agreed to, and the amendment was non-concurred in. Mr. FAIRFIELD moved to non-concur in the following amendment: "SEC. 40. And be it further enacted, That in case the Postmaster General shall deem it expedient to establish an express mail on horseback, in addition to the ordinary mail, on any of the post roads in the United States, for the purpose of conveying slips from newspapers in lieu of exchange newspapers, or letters other than such as contain money, not exceeding half an ounce in weight, marked express mail,' and public despatches, he shall be authorized to charge all letters and packets carried by such express mail with triple the rates of postage to which letters and packets, not free, may be by law subject, when carried by the ordinary mails." Mr. FAIRFIELD said he hoped the House would not concur with the Committee of the Whole in adopting this amendment. He viewed it as a specimen of that course of legislation which had prevailed for so many years that it might now be regarded as a system-that of legislating for the benefit of the few, regardless of the rights and interests of the many. The proposition is, substantially, to establish an express mail for letters and newspaper slips, to be carried on horseback, at triple the present rate of postage. This is, substantially, the proposition; for though the Postmaster General has now the power to establish an express mail, yet he has no power to increase the present rate of postage; and with out such increase it cannot be supposed that such a mail would be established. It is true that the proposed amendment will still leave the matter to the discretion of the Postmaster General; but he and every body else will consider the adoption or rejection of this amendment as an approval or disapproval of this project, and he will undoubtedly act accordingly. Mr. F. said he therefore felt himself justified in regarding this as a direct proposition to establish an express mail. Now, sir, if we look at the places where this mail would probably be started, or the persons who are particularly interested in it, and who would avail themselves of it, no one can view it as a measure designed for the common benefit of the people, but rather one designed for a very few, and those who, to say the least of them, are no more deserving of favors from the Government than others. Where, sir, will this express mail be established? Undoubtedly between the great commercial cities. [H. OF R. cities those sufficiently interested in his affairs to be equally on the alert with the speculators to obtain information, and equally ready and early to communicate it? Such a supposition cannot be entertained. Such friends are not to be found every day; and to hire a host of agents for this purpose would be burdensome and oppressive in the extreme. But, saying nothing of the speculators, I ask, said Mr. F., if it would not in practice be giving one class of merchants an advantage over others? It was not to be supposed that all would adopt this mail for their correspond. ence, unless, indeed, in the way of self-defence, they were all compelled to resort to it; in which case it would be imposing a heavy burden upon the young merchant who had just commenced business, and perhaps with a small capital. To the wealthy merchant, him who is worth his hundreds of thousands, this triple postage would be a matter of no consequence; but it would be far otherwise to men of smaller capital, but who are quite as much deserving of aid from the Government as the more wealthy. The probability is, therefore, that all would not avail themselves of this express mail; it would be confined to a few. Those who are rolling in wealth, and care nothing for the extra expense--and those "neck or nothing" men who, in all their transactions, are willing to incur extraordinary expenses in the expectation of reaping extraordinary profits; in which case it will be perceived that, in most of the sales and purchases in our commercial cities, particularly in regard to country retailers, one party would be acting upon information obtained by the express mail, not possessed by the other. The wholesale dealer might know precisely when it would be for his interest to yield a little in his demands, and when to persist in his demands for an exorbitant price. The operations, therefore, of this mail would be unequal. In practice, whatever it may purport to be on the face, it would be conferring advantages on one class to the injury of another. Entertaining these views, sir, I feel bound, said Mr. F., to oppose the concurrence of the House with the Committee of the Whole in adopting the proposed amendment. Mr. HARPER opposed the motion, and went on to surest safeguard against the impositions of the speculators. Mr. PARKER moved to strike out the words "on horseback;" agreed to. It can support itself nowhere else, and indeed it is very doubtful whether it could support itself there. It would, therefore, be confined not only to the large mariti mecities, but to a very few of them-say those betweer. Boston and Baltimore. The class of persons who would be particularly benefited by it would be the speculators. It would be lending the aid of the Government to speculators, and those who are not content to pursue business in the regular ordinary mode. It is well known that there is a class of men in all our large cities, who devote themselves (or many of them) to no regular calling, but who are constantly on the watch, to avail themselves of the fluctuations of the market, to speculate out of those who are quietly pursuing their business with habits of industry and frugality, content with their gains, which, though slowly, are honestly acquired, and which will be likely to endure. If, for instance, on an arrival from abroad, bringing information of a great rise in the price of any particular article, or such information as renders it probable that there will be a scarcity of any particular article, these speculators, by means of agents, immediately buy up and monopolize all of that article there is in the country, after which they sell back again to the people, at prices affording to the specula-show that an express, established by law, would be the tors enormous profits. And these are the men who are to be particularly benefited by the proposed express mail. Take for illustration a case similar to the one alluded to a few days since, though for another purpose, by the chairman of the committee who reported this bill. Suppose that, by an arrival at New York from Liverpool, information is obtained of a great and sudden rise in the price of cotton. Thereupon the speculators immediately despatch instructions to their agents at the South, through the express mail, and cause the whole crops of the planters to be purchased up at prices far below what might have been obtained, if the owners of the cotton had been aware of the facts, and information of the state of the market had been communicated by the regular and ordinary mail. Here, the profits on the cotton would not go into the pockets of him who had raised it by the sweat of his brow, but into the pockets of the prowling speculator, who lives upon the industry of others. It is for the benefit of this class of men that the express mail will be established. I know it may be said that this express mail will be open and free for every one who chooses to avail himself of it, and that the planter, in the case supposed, can procure information by means of it, as early as the speculator or his agents. This is all plausible enough in theory; but how would it be practically? The speculator is constantly upon the alert, and immediately upon the receipt of information affecting materially the price of any article, say cotton, he despatches instructions to his partners or agents. But will the planter have in all the commercial VOL. XII.-258 The section, as amended, was then concurred in: Ayes 85, noes 38. Mr. HOWARD moved to non-concur in the following amendment of the Committee of the Whole: "SEC. 44. And be it further enacted, That the Postmaster General shall be authorized to contract for the trans. portation of the mail on railroads by the most expeditious means: Provided he shall be enabled to do so for a price not exceeding double that which is usually paid for equal freight, on the average, on such railroads, on ordinary merchandise." Mr. H. called the attention of the House to the fact that the section gave less than was offered by the Post. master General. Mr. HAWES hoped the House would concur, so that the Postmaster General might be so limited as to prevent the Government from being imposed upon. He hoped so, also, for the reason assigned by the gentleman from Maryland, because the Postmaster General offered too much. Mr. BOULDIN said he would vote for this or any other check that could be put on the monopoly of these railroads. Should a connexion of these railroads and steam conveyances be made between New Orleans and New York, and the combinations be formed which the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. ANTHONY] had suggested, we should be perfectly at the command, and un H. OF R.] Convention with Spain—Additional Paymasters, &c. der the thumb, of these companies. They would have the command of the commerce of the whole Union. They would not carry the mail for millions a year, because they could speculate on the market, and no private conveyance could compete with them. To make a parallel rail and steamboat route would cost immense sums; and, from the opinions of the Southern politicians, could not be made. Mr. B. said he would therefore throw every obstacle in his power in their way, and give no encouragement to them, until it should be understood distinctly, in every case, upon what terms they would carry the mail. He knew he could not break up the present railoads; but he would now inform them, that by his vote they could get no encouragement, without it being first understood upon what terms the mail would be carried. It made no great odds whether intelligence be carried in one day or five, provided all get information at the same time. But if these monopolies obtain these privileges, and by steam carry information faster than any private conveyance can carry it, we shall be perfectly at their command. Mr. B. would therefore not encourage them by giving exorbitant prices for carrying the mail, and would assure them of it by voting for limiting the Postmaster General according to the provision proposed in the bill. The debate was further continued by Messrs. HOWARD, ANTHONY, CONNOR, DICKERSON, WARDWELL, MANN of New York, PARKER, BELL, MERCER, MCKIM, VANDERPOEL, PEARCE of Rhode Island, BRIGGS, JUDSON, MASON of Virginia, and THOMAS; when Mr. PARKER moved a further amendment; which was negatived. Mr. J. Y. MASON moved to strike out the proviso in the section as reported from the committee; but subsequently withdrew the motion. Mr. EVERETT moved a substitute for the section; which he withdrew. The question was then taken on concurring with the committee in the adoption of the foregoing section, and determined in the negative: Ayes 60, noes 73. Mr. ASH moved that the House adjourn: Ayes 71, noes 44. The House adjourned. Mr. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, by leave, from the Committee on Military Affairs, reported a bill from the Senate, providing for the appointment of three additional paymasters of the army; read twice and committed. Mr. J. asked the consent of the House to make the bill the special order for to-morrow at half past 10 o'clock; objected to. Mr. HIESTER moved a suspension of the rules, for the purpose of taking up the joint resolution from the Senate, fixing the day of adjournment of the present session of Congress. Mr. HAWES moved to lay the motion to suspend on the table. [JUNE 1, 1836. Mr. HAYNES asked for the yeas and nays; which were ordered. The House refused to lay the motion on the table: Yeas 81, nays 99. Mr. HIESTER then asked for the yeas and nays on the motion to suspend the rules; which were not ordered, and the motion was decided in the negative: Ayes 84, noes 81; not two thirds. ABOLITION REPORT. Mr. HUNT asked leave of the House to make a statement on a subject in which he was personally concerned, and which was of deep and vital importance to this country. Objections being made, Mr. HUNT moved the suspension of the rules, for the purpose indicated. He held in his hand, he said, a document which he had found on his table, since he came into the House this morning, and to which he wished to call the attention of the House. [Cries of "order."] The SPEAKER put the question on the suspension of the rules; when, by the sound, it seemed to be lost. Before the result was announced, the yeas and nays were called for and refused. Mr. HARDIN asked if it was in order to amend the motion, so as to allow him to make an explanation. He had been represented, in a document now on the tables of members, as having voted for the emancipation of slaves in the States, which was utterly false. it. Mr. PATTON stated that no member of the House, after knowing the object of the request, would refuse The tables of the House had been covered with copies of a document, which members were unwarily circulating, containing foul misrepresentations of the course of members of this House on a most important question. Mr. CLAIBORNE, of Mississippi, followed Mr. PATTON, and said he rose to corroborate the statement of that gentleman, and to urge the majority in the House to give to the member from New York [Mr. HUNT] an opportunity to explain. He felt that he himself had been placed in a position of peculiar delicacy, without any fault or connivance of his own. A few days since he had put his name to a paper which was circulating in this hall, for the printing of the report submitted by the select committee on the subject of slavery. Such papers, proposing the publication of certain documents, were seen here every day. Who put the one in circulation which Mr. C. had subscribed to he did not know. When he took his seat here this morning, he found two hundred copies of the report on his desk, folded and directed by his amanuensis, and he had put his frank on them, without being aware of the erroneous statement they contained. The moment he was apprized of this, he sent to the post office to recall them, and should commit them to the flames. He had most unconsciously put his frank upon a falsehood; and the only return in his power to offer, the only evidence he was able to give of his regret, he would now give, by voting to allow the gentleman from New York to explain, and he invoked the House to suspend the rules. Mr. PATTON demanded the yeas and nays, and, being taken, the motion to suspend the rules was carried: Yeas 140, nays 36. Mr. HUNT said: I return my grateful acknowledgments to the House for the privilege allowed me, by an overwhelming vote, to make an explanation, in a matter deeply affecting my character as a man and a legislator. I regret, sir, to consume any time in a matter more immediately personal to myself; but the House will bear me witness that I have not often thrown myself upon their indulgence, nor consumed much of their time in the debates of the session. Sir, after taking my seat this morning, and after the business of the House had commenced, my attention was accidentally called to a publication from the office of the Globe, in pamphlet form, purporting to be the "Report of the select committee upon the subject of slavery in the District of Columbia, made by Hon. H. L. PINCKNEY, to the House of Representatives, May 18, 1836. To which is appended the votes in the House of Representatives upon the several resolutions with which the report concludes." The first resolution is in the following words, viz: "Resolved, That Congress possesses no constitutional authority to interfere in any way with the institution of slavery in any of the States of this confederacy;" and the pamphlet to which I allude goes on to say, "the following are the votes on the resolutions at the conclusion of the report, viz: On the first resolution-Nays Messrs. Adams, H. Allen, Bailey, Bell, Bond, Bunch, G. Chambers, Clark, Everett, Granger, Graves, Grennell, H. Hall, Hard, Hardin, Harlan, Hazeltine, Hoar, Howell, Hunt, Janes, Lawler, Lawrence, L. Lea, Lewis, Lincoln, Lyon, S. Mason, McKennan, Patton, J. A. Pearce, Pickens, Rencher, Russell, A. H. Shepperd, Slade, Sprague, Standefer, Steele, Taliaferro, Underwood, Vinton, Whittlesey, L. Williams, S. Williams, and Wise-46. Now, sir, your journals show that, upon this first resolution, there were nine* only in the negative, and that my name stands recorded in the affirmative. As regards the rank injustice done other gentlemen, it does not, perhaps, behoove me to speak; they are abundantly able to protect their own reputations; but as regards myself, I pronounce the publication in question to be either a gross misrepresentation, or a most palpable and inexcusa. ble mistake. Were this an error connected with any ordinary topics, or with the paltry and evanescent party politics of the day, I should have passed it by in silence; for I stand not here to utter philippics against any one, nor do I court the notoriety growing out of an issue made upon this floor with a newspaper editor. But, sir, this question of slavery is one of deep, absorbing, permanent, and alarming interest to this country. It will remain, with its momentous consequences to this Government, long after the individual who now addresses you, and all those within the sound of his voice, shall have passed to their graves. Upon such a question, I wish no mistake in my opinions, however humble their source may be. They are not the result of the moment, nor influenced by the fate of any aspirant for office; but the settled convictions of a judgment which has sought, with singleness of purpose, for the truth. Sir, in charity for human frailty, perhaps I am bound to consider the present error as arising from mistake. I trust it has so arisen, although even that view cannot soften the harshness of its injustice; for why to a report append the yeas and nays growing out of accompanying resolutions? Is not this a most unusual course? At least, if editors suppose any purpose is to be answered by such a course, we have a right to hold them strictly responsible for the truth and accuracy of their report. One further remark. In a daily paper, issuing from the Globe office a few days since, I, with others, was denounced in no measured terms for having given a conscientious vote upon a question growing out of this same slavery resolu tion. Sir, I felt the editors did me great injustice, yet desired not to trouble this House with a private griev ance of the kind. I passed it by, as one of the evils *The gentlemen who voted in the negative upon the first resolution were Messrs. SLADE POTTS, PHILLIPS, JONES, JACKSON of Mass., EVERETT, DENNY, CLARK, and ADAMS.-Note by Mr. H. [H. or R. growing out of a licentious press, to be redressed; not upon this floor, but in some other place; but, sir, the events of this morning have, to my mind, connected that newspaper attack with the misrepresentations of the pamphlet to which I have called the attention of the House; and when gentlemen reflect that this pamphlet has gone, under our own frank, to every quarter of this extended country, they will feel the necessity imposed upon me of making in my place the explanation I have given. This explanation was due to myself, and, more especially, to a family to whom I can hope to leave little else than an unsullied reputation. Sir, allow me again to thank the House for their indulgence, and, having done so, I have done with this unpleasant subject. Mr. UNDERWOOD asked whether the document had been received by order of the House. If so, he should propose a resolution declaring it to be erroneous in its statements. Some one replied in the negative. Mr. A. H. SHEPPERD asked whether the Clerk had furnished the list of yeas and nays for publication. The SPEAKER stated that the Clerk, in reply, had informed him that he was not in the habit of furnishing lists to editors, but that editors had access to the book of yeas and nays, and took the lists for themselves. Mr. MERCER asked to what date the printed journal had been brought down. The SPEAKER replied, to the 16th of May. Mr. A. H. SHEPPERD and Mr. MERCER asked leave to make explanations on the subject; but it was objected to. Mr. GILLET said, if the House would permit him, he would explain this matter; but objections were made. Mr. CLAIBORNE said he felt his reputation involved in this subject, and he claimed it as a right to make a statement to the House. [Cries of "leave, leave," and "no, no."] Mr. CLAIBORNE moved a suspension of the rules for the purpose. Mr. MERCER moved to amend the motion so as to permit others to make explanations; which motion was, after some confused proceedings, agreed to by a vote of 91 to 79. Mr. PATTON rose, and called the attention of the House to the fact that the Globe newspaper recently contained an editorial article making statements equally as gross and false as those which had been just brought to the notice of the House. Mr. P. was bere interrupted by calls to order. The question on the motion to suspend the rules was taken by yeas and nays, and negatived: Yeas 98, nays 82; not two thirds. Mr. UNDERWOOD asked the consent of the House to offer a resolution directing the printer to the House to publish five thousand copies of the report on the slavery subject, with the yeas and nays on each of the resolutions annexed. Mr. VANDERPOEL objected, on the ground that it would create a debate. Mr. MCKENNAN asked the gentleman from Kentucky to withdraw his motion. He had no idea, he said, of paying the printer for his blunders. Mr. UNDERWOOD withdrew the proposition. Mr. WISE rose simply to request the members who had received these pamphlets to prevent their circulation. "Yes," "certainly," was responded from every part of the House. On motion of Mr. CONNOR, the House then proceeded to the orders of the day. POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT. The House resumed the bill to change the organiza |