The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-12-31


thing OF the particular deputy who was sent or the nature
OF his instructions communicated 70 Congress They have
attracted general attention The principles contained "
and the American mind and the effect OF ordering this
extra number 10 be printed aud Distributed Is only 70 con-
tlaus the causes q irritation which nay exist pswssn
origin OF the OF that unfortunate irritation has to-
tally ceased and disappeared BY the deposabe fate Of
Sir. really did not intend to take any part ia these pro-
ceedngs but beg gentlemen TO recollec that we have
great mission and destiny TO accomplish which i Is i'm
to conceive or apprehend and that should with
caution, with circumspecon; astonishing no principles
that be brought in the course Of future history TO
upon to establish no principles
which shall put all the world against Sir, you want
this document publshedfor WHAT Il is not wanted in
America for every sentiment contained IN 4 Is already
felt and cherished in the American heart DO you want
TO send il to Austria Russia or any part Of the continent
Of Europe or TO Great Britain You need mol expect to
make proseytes Of those who are not already concung
with you opinion upon the general principles OF the
document do not. Dir, upon any ground oinivmaton
70 the people Of The United States. OF upon any other
ground, any necessity for the extraordinary extra
Nj MANGUM asked for the yeas and nays upon the
question oi printing and they Were ordered ooo
son s aav upon p'anS i00SO
The PRESIDENT, Upon printing 10000 extra.
HAMN Has been ordered to Ss printed
and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
The question being taken the printing Of 10000
extra copies, was los-yeas 10, nays I'll as IouoWs:
YEAs-Messrs. Baldwin, Bell Ca,., Clemens, Cooper.
Davis oil Massachusetts, Dawson Downs, Ewing, Fetch,
Greene Mangam, Kusk, SMITH Soue, Sturgeon, Under
Clarke, Clay, Davis Of Mississippi Dodge Of Wisconsin,
SMs & Tasy aAs
CHANGE OF VENUE
A message received from the House OF Repre-
sentatiyes BY Mr. Young their Clerk, announcing the
Senate that the House had passed the bill from the Senate
to authorize change Of venue in certain cases, with
amendments IN which they request the concurrence Of the
Senate
The Senate then proceeded the consideration Of the
amendment Of the House Of Representatives, to the fore
going bill
MI WALKER moved that the Senate concur in the
amendment OF the House.
Mr. TURNKEY think this bill ought 10 be referred
to the Committee on the Judiciary, and | make that
motion.
Mr.. WALKER. If il be in order, would submit a
very few remrks upon that motion, desmng il necessary,
as do, and think the Senate will deem il, TO send
this bill to the committee. The Senate withou even
DIVISION without any opposition passed general bill
authorizing change OF venue from the courts OF the Dis
rct Of Columbia q the States Of Maryland and Virginia
referred to their judiciary Committee That judiciary Com
ltee deemed the bill, as passed the Senate, TO be
nfracon OF the consultation OF the United States, and
in this way, that proposed indirectly give jursdic-
ton to the courts OF the United States Which could not
be given to those courts directly For example, there
parties having suit in the District of Columbia both
OF which residents in the District They could not
bring sui in of the United States courts Of either
OF these States, but they could bring here, and by in
direction get il into the district circuit court oil the
United States in one Of these States il they per.
mitted, under that general bill, to make change OF
venue. That being the view taken OF II by the House
Of Representatives, they reported substitute this special
BILL the parties standing in such relation that in these
the United States courts might take original juris
dicon of il The object is to obvate this constitutional
difficulty that the House sends this bill. The bill
gives change OF in the particular mentioned
to either sde upon its being suggested upon affidavit that
impartial trial cannot be had In this District II is only
what allowed in every county, Perhaps in the various
States OF the Union.
Some nave raised the objection that il il implied
upon the judges Of the courts OF this district Sir
there nothing of the kind in the BILL and when looked
properly ii cannot be construed into anything OF that
sort There is not Judge in any OF the States OF the
Union but who subjected to this imputation such
il be inferred to be, under the laws which give
change OF in those States Every affidavit which
is presented for change OF venue is an imputaon upon
the judge, this be construed into mputaion and
those who raised that Argument il does seem to would
claim immunity for the judges OF this District that is
not claimed or possessed BY any other Judge OF the
United States Looking upon the matter in this Light,
and deemng but justice that general right to change
of venue should be given here, il were possible under
the constitution cannot any Improperly in passing
s On bs Jsdcs s BE- 70
amendment concurred in and ii hereafter, upon examina
ton Of this question, We find that general law can De
passed, without violation Of the constitution Of the
United Satess still believe, Committee on the
Judiciary believed at the time they reported the BILL that
II ought 10 De passed. bu Tor the present. have such
Difference the amendment of the House OF Representa-
tves, being substitute for the bill sent them, that
should be pleased to il at once concurred in.
Mr.. TURNEY. | know nothing, Mr.. President, OF
the special referred to in this amendment, the
reasons which induced either OF the parties having
suit in this District 10 avail itself Of the provisions OF
this bill il order to effect change OF venue. but
principle opposed to this special mode Of legislation for
particular law and TO comforting upon certain persons
engaged in litigation extra privileges over those Of others
believe that all these things should depend upon gen.
Iuxv nd M a mari in havr he
rights in the courts OF justice oil the United States
and that il anything would reflect upon the Judiciary OF
the District would be special mode OF legislation. II
direct, specific charge against the courts In
this that should be taken OF the general rule and
general principles and practices OF law that govern trials
and suits within the District OF Columbia. Now know
Of no reason why special law should be applied 70 this
than TO any other voted, have no doubt,
for the original bill am prepared TO vote for general
ground be shown TO the court but am not prepared
to say, while this general policy shall not be adopted that
the suits of all other persons except one particular case
shall be forced be tried before this court and jury and
that this shall form exception to them in order 70
crafty some peculiar feeling whim. Sir, II there
Be anything in the consiutionaliy Of law. II must APP
ply this special mode OF legislation II is mode Of Civ
ing exclusive rights and privileges to A, b and e. over
those oil the general mass Of sutors-o confer them
upon those who happen to have lawsuits within the
courts OF this District This, sir constitutes ali objec-
ton with me, and do think question OF this i'm
portance ought TO be examined by the appropriate
fnittee Of this body Therefore made the motion TO
fer it to the COMMITTEES the Judiciary, thinking il
might elicit from them the views which they may enter
tain Of the constitutional power OF Congress thus TO act
and OF the expedcncy Of adopting policy Of this SORT
,,f .Y1 Y~r,,i,or hore