The Arkansas advocate., 1834-04-11

losses aforesaid, and that he, she, or they abandoned their improvements in conse- anenee of the aforesaid treaty between the United States and inc Choctaw Indians; and that this act shall be in force for the term of three years from the twenty sixth day of May next.
 In HousF, Feb. 2S.-J'he bill for tie relief of Vim. Enos, of Arkansas, was or dered to be engrossed for third reading- and passed on the 7th March.
 March 4.-Mr. Core Johnson. from the committee to whom the subject had been referred, reported bill. directing the sur vey and sale Of certain lands in the Terri tory of Arkansas, which was twice read and committed.
 The Committee on Indian Af,firs was discharged from inquiring into the cxpedi- eney of making ar appropriation for the purpose of aiding the Choctaw Indians ln establishing printing press in the country io which they have emigratcd, west Of the Mississippi.
 And-of increasing inc salary of the sub- agent of the Choctaw Indians west of the Mississippi.
 March l2th.-The House went into Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union. and resumed the consideration of the Military Appropriation bill.
 On the item .sfor extending the works and erecting additional barracks at Fort Gibson, $25, ,000"-Mr. Serier moved to amend the bill by striking out this item, and substituting Sl0,000, for erecting barracks at Fort Smith. The debate then turned on the propriety of removing the garrison to the present boundary line. The removal was advocated by Messrs. Serief, .4Si}eg, Clnyton, R. .M. Johnson, and Watnaough; and opposedhy Messrs. Potk, Hance, Cage, Hubbard, Speieh, Gilmcr, and Duncan.
 Mr. fl EyereH moved an amendment, reducing the sum appropriated from $25,- coo to $5,o0o, and striking out the clause relating to extending the works and making them permanent.
 Mir. Seyier's amendment was negatived, and mr. Eyerett's adopted.
 WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?--The following queries, addressed to the President and " President of the United States, and to the Chef of the Nulliiers, appeared in a late No. of the New Orleans Bee. Tine writer says, .' they will in due time be followed by some ddditionol developementsn As 1t has been remarked, there are TO levelone- mants made ID the queries, but rather mere insinuations, conveyed in the mest obiec- tlonable and least manly and direct man. ner; but it Is nevertheless not difficult to see what the author aims at. Ne suspect, however, that ere long, these insinuations will assume the nature of charges, and we shall not be sprprized if they be sustained by proofs. It is not the first time that 1t has been whispered that the patriotic Null llfers were in correspondence with leading British Statesmen, in relation to the seces- sion of South Carolina from the Union.-- But to the queries, upon which 1t will be time enough 10 offer comment hereafter, if 1t should turn ont that they are based on credible information:
 "QUEsTIoN:-To Andrew Jackson, Pre- sident of the U. s. of America-In your 1 celebrated Proclamation to the people of South Carolina, you alluded (under certain contingencies) to servie dependence by them upon foreign power--what were your reasons for such an alIusion! QuEsrIoN:--To Martin Van Buren, Vice President of the U. S. of Ameriea-What information did yon receive in England and transmit to this country, of a correspor- dence, between certain persons of South Carolina, and individuals of high rank in England?
 QvEsTIoN:-To John C.. Calhoun, Sen ator in Congress-Were you or were you not prlyy to certain letters, supposed to be written by nr. Cooper and the late Mir. Turnbuli, to Lords Grey ard Palmerston, on the subject of the late movements of s. Carolina and the general secession in the Southern States, from the Union?"