State, the answer would be very different. The first and most early impression, as to property, made upon the mind of a Southern child, is, that the nurse with whom he plays, and who follows his little footsteps, and teaches him to walk and to talk, is his property; and, ask the child of a Southern Planter what property he owns, his answer, nine times out of ten, would be, the name of his nurse-so that this remark of the gentleman is as applicable to slave property as to any other.

But, says the gentleman, [Mr. BARNARD] slaves are not property, like an ox or horse, because they are reasonable beings, and if you injure their persons you are made to answer for it. This is most extraordinary doctrine-and it is not the first time, in this debate, I have heard it urged; and, what astonishes me most, is, that it should have been urged by gentlemen whose legal acquirements ought to inform them better. It was but the other day, that an honorable gentleman from Rhode Island, [Mr. BURGES] stated the same thing, and now it is reiterated by the gentleman from New York. I cannot believe that these gentlemen have examined the law upon these subjects; if they had, they must have formed a very different opinion. Is it possible that gentlemen will contend in this House, that slaves cannot be property, because they are "reasonable beings," and, in that respect, they differ from a horse or ox? Is there any law in our country, which declares that "reasonable beings" cannot be reduced to a state of slavery, and, as such, become property? There is not. But, in the case of the slave of our country, he is not, he cannot, be regarded as a "reasonable being." In viewing the slave we must speak of him here in a legal, constitutional, and political point of view-we have nothing to do with his natural state. I say, without fear of contradic tion, that, in the eye of the law and the Constitution, the slave is not a reasonable being. He is, legally and constitutionally speaking, no more a "reasonable being," than is a horse or the table which stands before me.

The slave is unknown to the law or the constitution, except as the property of the master. In that respect, he stands upon an equality with any other property, and so far as the Government of the United States is concern ed, he has no legal or political protection. The gentle man says, if we injure the persons of slaves, we are made to answer for it. But to whom are we made to answer and by what laws? Not to this nation or to this Federal Government, nor can they point to any thing in the laws or constitution of the United States, to make us responsible. No, Mr. Speaker, as to this Government and its laws, we are not responsible for any injury done to a slave-so far as regards this Government, we are complete masters of their persons and their lives: whenever the master is restrained from injuring his slave in any manner, it is by the statutory provisions of his own State, and by no other power. As the laws of all nations first stood, the master could take the life of his slave at his pleasure; such was the law in every part of this country, where slavery was recognized, until altered by municipal regulations. In Louisiana, where the Civil law was in force until altered for the special government of the country, by a municipal regulation, the master could inflict death or any other injury upon his slave. What rights has the slave, and what redress for injury? I say none; as to rights, he is, as if he were not in existence; and as to redress, where has he any? He can own no property; if he acquire any it belongs to his master, and if he be beaten and ill-treated, he cannot recover damages for the injury any more than a horse can. In both cases the master must bring his action for damages, and in both cases, he recovers by the same process and the same principles of law; such is the case in Louisiana; no proceeding can be had in the name of the State for an assault and battery, &c. In some of the slave-holding States, the law has

[FEB. 7, 1828.

been changed by the Legislature, and punishments are inflicted in certain events, for injuries done to a slave— but this is altogether a State business, and has nothing to do with the general principle as laid down by the gentleman. They are entirely and most grossly mistaker. The gentleman [Mr. BARNARD] in his concluding remarks, observed, that "the law, like the grave, is a leveller, and makes no distinction between the master and the slave as to life, and that the property of the master in his slave, is subject to the laws of humanity." Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman means to say by this, that, in the slave-holding States, the municipal or State regulations protect the life of the slave at the present time against the unjustifiable taking of it by the master, he is correct; but such internal regulations of each State have nothing to do with the general question as connected with the Federal Government. But, even by the State laws, the slave is not placed upon an equality with his master, as to life; for, if the slave resists or raises his hand to his master, or a free white person, in some of the States, they have the right to take his life; nor has the slave the right to defend himself against his master; but, should the master kill him without good cause, he is punished in some States by death, in others by confinement. In no State is “the law a leveller between the master and the slave." God forbid that I should advocate any principle opposed to the feelings of humanity; but, certainly, sir, in a Government of laws, like ours, there are no other laws than those derived from our happy Constitution, and the powers growing out of it. I know of no laws of humanity recognized by our Government, like those alluded to by the gentleman from New York. But, Mr. Speaker, we have laws implanted in our bosoms, and feelings, too, which rule us in our conduct towards that class of property. If the gentlemen would give themselves the trouble to visit the slave-holding States," and to see our slaves, and compare their condition and comforts with those of the poorer and laboring classes of free persons in their own States, I am certain it would remove, in a great measure, that sympathy which at present so often and so glowingly depicts their imaginary sufferings. It is because they are strangers to us and to our feelings, and conduct towards our slaves, that we are so constantly the theme of their invective.

I ask pardon of the House for having occupied so much more time than I intended; but I could not refrain from saying what I did in reply to the two gentlemen who preceded me. I hope this bill will pass. The case is a clear one. It is proven by the testimony accompaying the report of the Committee, that the slave was impressed into the service of the United States, by the order of the Commanding General, and whilst in that service he was disabled. The extent of the injury is also proven and estimated, and the owner asks you to pay him the damages done to his slave. It is admitted that "slaves are property," and the Constitution declares that a "fair compensation" shall be given for all property taken for the public use. Can you refuse to pay D'Auterive for his property? I appeal to the justice and understanding of all who hear me.

Mr. TAYLOR said he rose with reluctance, at this stage of the debate, to detain the House even for a moment. At an earlier period, when the bill was in Committee of the Whole, and the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiane, [Mr. GURLEY] was under consideration, he had endeavored to get the floor, for the purpose of expressing, somewhat at large, his objections to that amendment. These objections had been confirmed, rather than impaired, by subsequent reflections. He saw in the bill some claims of admitted justice, for which all were prepared to vote; and one item, of a character so objectionable, that, before he sat down, he should move a recommitment of the bill to the Committee of Claims,

for the purpose of having it expunged. It was not his intention to enter upon an examination of the rights of master and slave in those States where that condition of society exists. The necessity of doing so was entirely superseded by the able and conclusive argument of his honorable friend and colleague [Mr. BARNARD.] The just and liberal views of that gentleman could not fail to recommend him to the distinguished regard of this House. However some gentlemen might dissent from the conclusions to which he had arrived, all must approve his high and manly tone of feeling towards our brethren of the slave-holding States. He was happy to be assured that in this he was not mistaken. The assent [said Mr. T.] of more than one honorable member from the South, confirms my remark. After what my colleague (said Mr. T.] has expressed so well, and in a temper so coincident with my own feelings, I should have foreborne to address you on this subject, were it not to notice a remark made, not only by one, but by almost every gentleman who has advocated this claim. They have informed us that, in the slave-holding States, an opinion very generally is entertained, that a fanatical spirit exists in the non-slave-holding States, threatening improper interference between master and slave. If such an opinion be entertained, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, it is most unjust to the North. No such spirit now exists; none such ever has existed in the non-slave-holding States I do not mean to say that an individual could not be found, of whom the remark might be made with truth. Particular individuals may be met with, in the South as well as in the North, whose opinions on this subject are of the most absurd and extravagant character. But what I say is, that no man, whose opinions are entitled to respect, either in this House or out of it, believes it to be within the competency of Congress to interfere, in the States of this Union, in any manner whatever, between master and slave. This subject is not within our jurisdiction. It belongs to the States, and to them alone, to regulate this delicate and difficult matter. It was so decided by the first Congress which assembled under this Constitution, and their decision, in regard to it, has been, and now is, the established doctrine of all well-informed men in this country. The importance that has been given to this subject, not only here, but elsewhere, will plead my justification for detaining the House a few moments, in referring to the history of that decision.

On the 12th of February, 1790, a memorial from the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Sla. very, was presented to the House, and read, praying that Congress might take such measures in their wisdom, as the powers with which they were invested would authorize, for promoting the abolition of slavery, and discouraging every species of traffic in slaves. A ques. tion was made and discussed, whether the memorial should be referred to the consideration of a Committee, and was decided in the affirmative by ayes and noes-43 to 11. Congress considered it a proper occasion to quiet any alarms which might be entertained by the South, and to anounce to the whole country, in regard to this subject, its construction of the Constitution, then recently established. The memorial was referred to a Committee, all of whom, except Mr. Parker, of Virginia, were Northern men. The other members were, Mr. Foster, of New Hampshire; Mr. Huntington, of Connecticut; Mr. Gerry, of Massachusetts; Mr. Lawrence, of New York; Mr. Sinickson, of New Jersey; and Mr. Hartley, of Pennsylvania. Other matters, in relation to the foreign slave-trade, had been referred to the same committee. The report made the 5th of March, had relation to both subjects. Permit me to read so much of it as regards the mat. ter now under consideration. The Committee reported

"That, from the nature of the matters contained in

(H. or R.

those memorials, they were induced to examine the powers vested in Congress under the present Constitution, relating to the abolition of slavery, and are clearly of opinion-First, That the General Government is expressly restrained from prohibiting the importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, until the year 1808. Secondly, That Congress, by a fair construction of the Constitu tion, are equally restrained from interfering in the emancipation of slaves, who already are, or who may, within the period mentioned, be imported into, or born within any of the said States. Thirdly, That Congress have no authority to interfere in the internal regulations of particular States, relative to the instruction of slaves in the principles of morality and religion; to their com fortable clothing, accommodation, and subsistence; to the regulation of their marriages, and the prevention of the violation of the rights thereof, or to the separation of children from their parents; to a comfortable provision in cases of sickness, age, or infirmity; or to the seizure, transportation, or sale, of free negroes; but have the fullest confidence in the wisdom and humanity of the Legislatures of the several States, that they will revise their laws, from time to time, when necessary, and promote the objects mentioned in the memorials, and every other measure that may tend to the happi ness of the slaves."

This report having been committed to the Committee of the Whole House, after many days discussion, was finally amended to read as follows:

"That the migration or importation of such persons, as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, cannot be prohibited by Congress, prior to the year 1808; that Congress have no authority to interfere in the emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them within any of the States, it remaining with the several States alone to provide any regulations therein which humanity and true policy may require.”

Such, Mr. Speaker, then was, ever since has been, and now is, the judgment of Northern, as well as Southern men in regard to the powers of Congress on this interesting subject. In a debate in this House, some years since, relating to the country West of the Mississippi, opinions in opposition to those contained in that report, were imputed to me, and those with whom 1 acted. In behalf of them and myself the opinions imputed were promptly and indignantly disavowed and disowned, and their monstrous absurdity and injustice freely admitted. My efforts on that occasion (I fear justice will never be done by my Southern brethren to the motives which influenced them) were directed to bene fit the country West of the Mississippi, by applying to it the same glorious doctrines of the Ordinance of 1787, which, by the consent of Virginia, and on motion of a distinguished Virginian, had been applied to the country East of the Mississippi. And, although all for which we contended was not obtained, yet, the partial success which crowned our exertions has ever been considered by me the most fortunate event with which my public life has been associated. Perhaps I owe an apology to the House for even this brief reference to that subject. I should not have made it, had we not been warned, at an early period of the debate, not to make this another Missouri question.

Mr. Speaker: Having disclaimed all right, on the part of Congress, to interfere in any manner concerning the condition of slaves in those States where slavery exists, I shall proceed, very briefly, to state the relation in which I consider them to stand towards this General Government. The Constitution every where speaks of them as per

These reports by a solemn vote of the House, were recorded on its Journal, and will stand in all time as a disclaimer of the pretensions unjustly attributed to us.-Note by Mr. T.

H. OF R.]

Case of Marigny D'Auterive.

[FEB. 7, 1828.

sons, and not as property; in taking the census they are aggrieved, as a wrong-doer. I will not sanction a pracenumerated as persons; three-fifths of their number tice fraught with such fatal consequences to the peace are represented on this floor as persons: for, if there be of the Union, and the security of the Southern States. any principle at the foundation of the General Govern. But we have been told this Government has recognisment, it is this: that the representation is of persons, and ed slaves as property, by claiming and receiving com. not of property. Who ever heard of the Rocks which pensation from Great Britain for the benefit of our citiwhiten the thousand hills of New England, or the ships zens, whose slaves were illegally carried away by the which crowd the busy port of New York, being repre- naval and military officers during the late war. To the sented in Congress? True, as regards this Government, argument drawn from this fact, I reply, that the Constituthey are persons without civil or political rights. They tion of the United States declares, “no State shall enter owe to it neither allegiance nor defence. Congress into any treaty:" and again, "no State, without the conmay make a soldier of every free man in the nation-sent of Congress, shall enter into any agreement or but the slave is beyond our jurisdiction. We cannot compact with a Foreign Power. " The power of touch him. And who will contend that a military offi- claiming compensation for these injuries being taken cer of the United States, deriving all his authority from from the States, and confided to the General GovernCongress, can do that by arbitrary power which the ment, it became its duty to do for their citizens what President and both Houses of Congress cannot do by the States themselves would have done had not the law? The defence of this country rests securely on the power been taken from them. This Government claims stout hearts and strong arms of freemen. They are no benefit to itself from the treaty or the compensation competent to its defence. Let not this honourable office growing out of it. It stands in the relation of trustee be degraded by casting it upon slaves. Sir, the doc- merely for the persons injured, and for whose benefit trine which I maintain is sanctioned no less by consider- alone compensation has been received. ations of safety to the South, than of justice to the North. In regard to the latter, we say, gentlemen, you come to us and claim political power in proportion to the number of your slaves, as natural and moral persons; as human beings: we grant your request; we give to you for them, and on their account, in that character, twenty-four votes in this House, and an equal number in the election of a President of the United States. It is a great boon: it makes war or peace-it changes the policy of the Government, and establishes that as right which a majority of the freemen of the United States have voted to be wrong. We repeat, it is a great boon. But we admit it is the bargain. The Constitution has so fixed it, and we seek not its violation. But, gentlemen, when with one breath you claim, and have conceded to you, these exalted privileges, in right of these persons as human beings, as men, do not, we pray you, if, on your own frontiers, and in your own defence, one of them should happen to be employed in the military service, without our consent or approbation-do not come to us to demand money for his life, to claim pay. ment for his blood. You, sir, sit in that chair because he is considered a man, and is enumerated as such under the Constitution and laws of the country. Do not degrade him to the condition of a brute. Do not ask money for him, when we ask none, as parents and masters, for the loss of children and apprentices.

The gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. DORSEY] and, indeed, many others, in the course of the debate, have founded an argument in support of this claim, on the mistaken hypothesis that slaves are liable to taxation as property by the government of the United States. They may be enumerated, and three fifths of their num ber included as persons in a general capitation tax, because in that proportion they are represented as persons on this floor. The same remark may be made in regard to direct taxes. These are apportioned among the States, not according to wealth, but population. States are taxed because their People are represented, and in the ratio of that representation. The argument that leads to the conclusion that slaves are considered property by the Government of the United States, because three-fifths of their number are estimated in the apportionment of direct taxes, will prove yet more conclusive. ly, that all free citizens are considered property, be cause five-fifths, or the whole of their number, are thus estimated for the same purpose. To such absurdities do the arguments of gentlemen lead, when they forsake the plain common sense interpretation of the Constitu tion, to indulge in metaphysical speculations. The most cursory reader of the Constitution cannot fail to observe with what caution its framers avoided the use of the words "slave" and "slavery." Every form of periphrasis was resorted to for that purpose. Their delica But, Mr. Speaker, I beg Southern gentlemen to concy on this subject is worthy of imitation. Let not gensider of the security they are surrendering in this thrift- tlemen, after a lapse of thirteen years, during all which less contest to squeeze a few dollars from the National time every similar claim has been disallowed and rejectTreasury. They all agree, that, if the slave in questioned; let them not now press upon us the establishment was in the public service, by virtue of a contract with of new principles, as odious to us as they will prove in his master, this claim is unjust. It is supported only operation injurious to themselves. on the ground that the commanding officer had a right, and that the circumstances of the case justified his exercising it, to take him from his master, and against his will, and apply him to military purposes. If the right exist, it must necessarily be exercised at the discretion of the commanding officer. If he may impress a slave, and put him to fatigue duty in the trenches, he also, at his discretion, may put him in the ranks, and place arms in his hands to defend the fortress. If he may impress fifty slaves, for a week, what is there to prevent him from impressing five thousand for three months I speak not of the power of States in time of war, to use these people for their own defence. That is a matter for their own consideration, of which they are competent to judge-I am not. But if a military officer of the United States has so far forgotten his duty as to impress slaves into the service, so far as my vote goes he shall stand responsible for his own act to the party

For the purpose of enabling the Committee of Claims to amend the bill by expunging the clause which was inserted on motion of the gentleman from Louisiana, I move to recommit it to that committee.

Mr. BATES, of Mass. said, he did not rise to go into a discussion of the question before the House, but merely to state the principles upon which he gave his vote against the amendment to the bill, and upon which he should give his vote against the bill itself, in its present form. And I am desirous of doing this, he remarked, because my own mind has changed during the progress of the discussion, and because I differ in opinion upon this question from some of my colleagues. With out attempting to trace to an impatient House, the process by which I have arrived at my results, or to state the authorities which the records of the House furnish, by which I can support one of them, the most material to the case in hand, I will barely state the results them

FEB. 8, 1828.]

Militia Courts Martial.

[H. or R.

therefore, for a recommitment of the bill, that the item in relation to the slave may be stricken out.

Mr. OAKLEY supported the views which had been given by Mr. BATES.

He was answered by Mr. DRAYTON and Mr. LIVINGSTON, who commented on the testimony, and insisted that it contained full proof of the impressment.

Mr. McDUFFIE said a few words in support of the bill, contending that, even if the slave had been taken on agreement, no price had been stipulated, and it was for Congress to fix the compensation.

Mr. WILLIAMS referred to former decisions of the House, who had twice deliberately rejected amendments proposing to make compensation for slaves lost or injured in the public service.

The question was then put on the recommitment of the bill to the Committee of Claims, and decided in the affirmative-Ayes, 82, Noes 79. So the bill was recommitted.

selves. My first position is: That, if a slave enter the service of the United States, whether as a soldier or servant, for a day or year, with the consent of his master the ordinary wages of the service cover the risk; the master becomes the insurer, and if the slave be killed or injured, the loss is the master's loss. I do not agree with the gentleman from New York, [Mr. BARNARD] to whom I listened, in the main, with the most unqualified delight, that the consent of the slave is at all material. But if so, the consent of the master and the service of the slave being proved, in the absence of any proof to the contrary, the consent of the slave is to be presumed. But I concede that the master may put the life of his slave in jeopardy, without his consent. Not wantonly. But, if D'Auterive's house had been on fire, might he not have compelled his slave to aid in extinguishing the flames? If his children had been assailed by a wild beast from the forest, or a monster from the lake or fen, might he not have compelled a reluctant slave to aid in rescuing them? If the quiet of his plantation had been disturbed by the war-whoop of the savage, might he not have awakened and compelled his slaves to aid in the common defence? And if so, when attacked by a common enemy, he might, without doubt, have compelled his slaves to arm, and to fight in the common cause. Therefore, I think the master may, and if he do consent to the service, that the wages cover the risk. Again: "Resolved, That the Secretary of War be instructed If the master do not consent, and the slave be impressed to furnish this House with copies of all letters and corres. without a necessity sufficiently urgent in our view to ex-pondence between the Secretary of War and General cuse the act, I will leave the party injured to his reme- Jackson, from the commencement of the Creek war, undy against the party injuring, as in any other case of til the 1st March, 1815, on the subject of the draft, sertrespass. But, on the contrary, if the slave be, in fact, vice, and discharge, of the several corps of Tennessee impressed, I mean coerced into the service, without the Milltia." consent of his master, and there be an urgent necessity for it, growing out of the exigencies of war, as that we shall now say in review, that, in the same situation, we would have done the same thing; then I will indemnify the owner, because I will interpose and protect the impressing officer, and will do directly without the intervention of a suit at law against the officer, what I should feel in honor bound to do, after a judgment and an execution against him. Such a case of necessity may exist; it may have existed at New Orleans.

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1828.
MILITIA COURTS MARTIAL.

The following resolution moved by Mr. SLOANE, yesterday, was taken up and read :

Mr. SLOANE, referring to a statement made yesterday by Mr. HAMILTON, Chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, that the committee would shortly report on the communication from the War Department, (in rela tion to the six militiamen) said, that he wished the correspondence referred to in the resolution might go to that committee, and be considered, with the others, before the report was made.

Mr. WICKLIFFE called for the reading of the former resolution, calling for documents on this subject, and it was read accordingly.

Mr. HAMILTON called for the reading of Mr. SLOANE'S resolution; and it having been again read, It was agreed to by the House, nem. con.

Now, what is the evidence here? An impressment is not to be presumed, for all agree that it is against the law. There is no proof of impressment here. The evidence is the other way; it is of consent, not impress. ment. This slave, Warwick, the Syndic says, was "put Mr. WRIGHT, of New-York, who had been appointin requisition," with many others, in obedience to an or- ed by the Chair, as one of the Select Committee on the der from General Jackson to the Mayor of New Orleans, inquiry on the subject of retrenchment, requested of the and from the Mayor to the subordinate city Magistrates. House to be excused from serving on that Committee, Putting in requisition is said to mean impressment. This and stated, as his reasons for making the request, that his is all the evidence there is to establish the fact of im- late duties as a member of the Committee on Manufac pressment. Now, I say, that every lawful call by a Go-tures had been very laborious, and had detained him vernor of a State for troops is a putting in requisition of those troops. But, I do not rely upon this; nor upon the receipt given by the Syndic to D'Auterive for this slave, which looks very much like consent, like contract; but I say, that precisely the same phrase is used by two witnesses, Amena and Doricourt, in relation to the cart. They swear the cart was put in requisition. Major Morgan, by whom the cart was put in requisition, if at all, swears "that he gave D'Auterive permission that it might remain in the service of the army, negativing the suggestion in relation to the cart, that putting in requisition means impressment. What is the evidence, then, that it does, in relation to the slave? There is none. It is a case of doubt at least; and, until that doubt is re. moved, I shall say the slave was in the service with D'Auterive's consent, and at his risk. He receives, for the use of his cart one month and one week, $95. He loses upon the slave, wins upon the cart: I shall vote,

from his seat for a long space of time, in consequence of which, he had not had time to attend to the private ap. plications from his constituents, or to his correspondence with them. The subject which formed the stated business of that committee, was, in a great measure, new to him; and to obtain even a tolerable degree of acquaintance with its details, consumed all the leisure time which was left after his public duty was over. Were he placed in different circumstances, he should esteem the appointment he had received as a compliment of no small value; but it would be doing deep injustice to himself, and to the duties already assigned to him, should he accept a situation which he could not fill with propriety. He, therefore, asked it as a personal favor that he might be excused from serving on the Committee of Inquiry.

The question being put, Mr. WRIGHT was excused, and, on motion of Mr. HAMILTON, it was ordered that another member be appointed in his place.

H. or R.]

Washington College.-Militia Courts Martial.

WASHINGTON COLLEGE.

The bill "concerning the Washington City College in the District of Columbia," was taken up in Committee of the Whole, Mr. INGHAM in the Chair. [This bill proposes to give to the College the power of conferring degrees.]

Mr. BURGES wished further information, before he could consent to pass this bill. The individual at the head of it was unknown to him, and the institution had not been incorporated.

[FEB. 11, 1828.

Mr. HAMILTON replied there was no such.

Mr. STORRS wished to divide the question. The documents had already been ordered to be printed. It was quite unnecessary to order them to be reprinted. The documents had been ordered to be printed so far back as the 30th of January.

Mr. HAMILTON said the motion was not capable of division. He had not asked for the printing of the documents a second time.

The SPEAKER suggested to Mr. HAMILTON the propriety of reducing his motion to writing.

Mr. HAMILTON then offered the following resolution :

Mr. ALEXANDER, Chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, explained the circumstances. The individual presiding was of good character and respectable literary standing. He had set up this Institution by his own enterprise, and had already obtained more than one hundred students. He had not asked for incorporation, but only for the power to confer the usual literary degrees, for want of which, the students, after having matured themselves in their course, would be Resolved, That the report of the Committee on Military obliged to enter some other College in order to obtain a Affairs, made to this House, on certain documents comdiploma. Mr. BARTLETT urged a legal objection to the bill. It municated by the Department of War, touching the prospoke of the President and Directors of Washington Col-ceedings of a Court Martial which convened at Mobile lege, but no names were specified, nor was any such In. on the 5th December, 1814, and a correspondence bestitution known to the law, not having been incorporated. tween the Secretary of War and Governor Blount, reIf the bill should pass, any persons who chose might specting certain drafts of the militia of the State of Tenclaim the benefit, on assuming the same title. nessee, be printed with said documents, which have been previously ordered to be printed by this House.

Mr. BURGES reprobated the idea of giving to one individual the literary power which, both in Europe and in this country, was claimed only by a faculty of learned men. The gentleman had been spoken of as modest, but really such a request evinced any thing but modesty. It savored of an arrogance which seldom dwelt with great learning and talent. If the gentleman wished in reality to found a College, let him come forward with his friends and seek a regular incorporation.

Mr. STORRS moved to amend the resolution by strik. ing out the words "with said documents, which have been previously ordered to be printed by the House.' These documents have already been ordered to be printed, and would, he presumed, in obedience to that order, be immediately laid on our tables.

Mr. WEEMS said, that, under no circumstances in life, would he ever consent that an innocent unoffending man should be injured as Mr. Keily was by the remarks of the gentleman from Rhode Island. If there was any irregu Tarity in the proposition now before the House-any thing the least reprehensible, he felt it a duty he owed to Mr. Keily-nay, sir, (said Mr. W.) a duty I owe to myself and the committee who reported this bill, of which I am an humble member, to take all such reproach upon my. self, rather than suffer an innocent unoffending individual to be thus censured. Mr. Keily asked nothing, wants nothing unreasonable. He wishes to be empowered, by this Congress, to confer the usual literary degree on such students as should, from time to time, be found deserving, without their parents being obliged to incur the unne cessary expense of sending them elsewhere for that pur: pose. He was not a legislator, and therefore presumed not to dictate the mode. He left that altogether with the Committee, and the present bill is the result of their deliberation, not Mr. Keily's-and, as one of that Committee, 1, with the other gentlemen, (said Mr. W) thought, as we still do, the mode adopted all sufficient. As, how ever, objections are started, I will not say ill-naturedly, and I wish to remove every obstacle to this very commen. dable desire, and to obtain it hereafter without opposi-presented by the present resolution. tion, by having it introduced, as suggested, by a regular incorporation, I move you, sir, to recommit the bill. The bill was recommitted, and the House adjourned to Monday.

tice, whether, if the amendment were adopted, it would Mr. HAMILTON would inquire, as a matter of pracments, and, in that case, he put it to the candor of the not prevent the report from being prefixed to the docu. gentleman from New York, whether such a modification ought to prevail.

Mr. STORRS said it would have been much more ac

Cording to practice, if the documents had been printed have had an opportunity to examine them while the combefore, in order that the members of the House might mittee were engaged in the same examination. He beg ged to say that he did dissent from some of the conclu

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1828.

MILITIA COURTS MARTIAL

The report of the Committee on Military Affairs, [made this day,] on the subject of the documents in this case, being under consideration

sions to which the committee had arrived. As the documents were ordered to be printed for the use of the House, they ought to be so printed. Such was his conclusion. It had been the course pursued on former occasions. He could point to several very important subtable for the information of the House. Such was the jects where the papers had been printed, and laid on the course in the debate which grew out of the Seminole from the documents. There was not an instance of an That came before the House in a report separate opposite course of practice, or if there was, he did not know it. He recollected no such instance; but if there had been any, he would be glad if any gentleman would state it, in which documents were printed in the manner

war.

The SPEAKER stated, that if the documents were printed under the existing order, the report would not be printed with them.

Mr. STORRS said, that as to the Georgia documents, they were printed after the session of Congress had terminated.

Mr. HAMILTON said that he did not desire to detain the House from actir.g on the question, and, therefore, in his remarks in reply to the gentleman from New York, he should be very brief. He understood the original motion of the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. WICKLIFFE] when the documents came in from the War Department,