Edwardsville spectator. [volume] (Edwardsville, Ill.) 1819-1826, 1822-04-09

to permit them to change the location OF
a certain tract of land purchased by them
at public sale in Vincennes, Indiana, a
mistake having occurred in the entry,
which the receiver and register had not
the power to correct, though early APP
priced Of the error by the petitioners.
Mr.. RANKIN chairman Of the commit
tee on public lands, moved to strike out
the enacting clause OF the bill, and offer
ed his reasons therefor.
Mr.. Cook, in the absence of the repre-
sentative from Indiana, Cat present indis-
posed) offered some remarks against the
motion and 10 favor of the bill.
Mr.. STERLING, Of N. Y. spoke in favor
Of the motion, chiefly on the ground that
it would afford bad precedent, and
might open the door for fraud, &c.
Mr.. Cook stated the bill was special
Iy guarded against fraud and in relation
to the case being an actual mistake, both
the register and receiver were satisfied
that it was.
After some further remarks, the mo-
ton to strike out the FIRST section prevail
ed--so the bill was rejected.
The bill for the relief of James
Mcfarland, was next taken up IN COM
mit,ee. This is claim for prc-cmp-
ton right of 535 acres, by a frontier
settler in Illinois, under the law oil 1918,
and explanatory act of lal6.
MIR. RANEIN moved to strike out the
ensclins clause. ..... ...
Mr.. Cook opposed the motion, and
advocated the merits Of the bill, endca-
yoring to prove that due application was
made within the time required by the
act, and that by the spirit OF the law the
petitioner was entitled TO relief. Alter
some remarks from Mr.. STEALING, who
was in favor Of the bill, the motion pre-
vai!cd.-Ayes 65.
March Is. ..-.
Mr.. NEWTON, of Virginia, from the
committee Oh that part Of the Presidents
message which relates to our CONNER
cial intercourse with foreign nations, and
the yariouspeii,ions on,he subj ector COM
mercial restrictions $50 called made a
report, which, on motion of Mr.. n. was
committed, and, on motion Of Mr.. CUsH-
Man, 1000 extra copies were ordered TO
be printed.
This report, which is eff great length,
(lo5 GuG:yo pages) concludes with the
following resolutions
Resolved, That the act concerning
navigation, passed the 18th of April,
1878, and the act supplementary to the
act concerning navigation, passed 18Th
May, 1920: and, also, the act laying a
TONNAGE duty on French vessels, passed
the l5lh May, 1920, made necessary to
coun.ervail the restrictive systems of
Great Britain and France, and for the
protection OF the navigation ard con
inerce of,he United States from injuries,
are still, and, as long as those adversa-
ry systems shall continue, mast be ne
cessary to protect from injuries the same
great interests, and ought not to be re-
pealed.
Rcsotpea, That the government Oh the
United States, having uniformly declar-
ed and avowed its attachment to the pi'in-
cip.es of free commerce, and having, in
the treaties which, it has formed and
agreed to, with foreign nations, and III
its relative acts, adhered to them, should
be the last to abandon them, and espe-
cially at time when every just and en-
lightened nation is conforming its com
mercial policy to all accordance with
those principles.
Reported FOR the Boston Daily Advertiser
FtJ.2l.-Mr.C Cook of Illinois, moved
that certain communications from the
Treasury department in obedience 10 two
resolutions Submitted by him a few DAYS
since relative to the manner in which the
land offices had been examined, should
be referred TO select committee.
MIR. RElD of Geo. moved that tae mo-
ton should lie on the table, which lac at
length withdrew. 1-
Mr.. CoxDIor Of n. J. moved to amend
the motion of Mr.. Cook, SO as to re-
fer them to the committee on Public
Lands, instead of a select committee.
Mr.. Condc, said that the land laws being
somewhat local in their nature, were not
very generally understood. They were
however well understood by the com
mittee Of Public Lands. He further
thought the subject to which the CON
from the Treasury Depart
ment related, was very properly re!era-
Bile to that committee.
Mr.. COOK said he was opposed to the
reference Of Inc subject to the committee
Oh Public Lands, because that committee
was already overloaded with business,
and because the reports from the Score