The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-09-07

lection; which being done, the motion Of Mr. BowLs
Mr.: ViNToN, BY leave, rose to personal expIana-
on 10 reply g the statement made BY the gentlemanrom
report OF the being IN the hands OF a member
OF the House before ~ was presented 10 the House.
Nf '. sad lhal when The report OF the mslonty IN
the COMMITTEES expressed wish make a minority re-
port The report with the papers belonging 10 the case
was put into his hands 10 draw ap the minority eprt
| He took them up TO The House for little lime The
gentleman from Illinois 10 him at his seat and ask ed
he could not gel the report copied saying he wished
the original returned 10 him soon II could conve-
nienty be done. He told the gentleman from Illinois he
would endeayo to get il done Not having clerk OF his
he applied e yGqnRR mt nwSg s sGy
returned He said he would do IT, Some two or three
days afterwards the gentleman from Illinois came to him.
ne hs M had
copy He replied that he had given the report to the son
of Mr. Ewing to copy that II was in pursuance OF ms
request that he had got copied but that he had no
knowledge OF the fact that copy OF Il was IN the hands
of Mr.. Seldom The gentleman from Illinois expressing
himself dissatisfied that the report should be in Mr. SED
Doss hands, he (Mr W went to Mr.. seldom, and in,
quired OF him if ne had copy OF the report lie SAID
that he had had one, but that he had given It 10 Mr.
& Ss had received msd b e% MR.
gentleman who had copied the report and inquired OF him
respecting He said that Mr. Mason OF the Senate had
expressed wish to the report as 1t related to class
OF claims in which the citizens Of Virginia were inter
ested that he had given him a copy He (Mr 70
then went TO Mr. MASON, who said he had handed the
copy in question to Mi. Seldom He {Mr. VI then went
to Messs Seldom and MnLsoN, and requested them to
deliver the copy up to hm-stating to them he thought 1t
perfectly proper that they should know, if they desired H.
what the contents OF the report were; that it had
gone their hands without his knowledge, and as Mr.
RICHARDSON had expressed himself dissatisfied, he
unwilling the copy should remain in their hands, and pre-
ferred that they should apply to Mr. RICHARDSON for
perusal Of the original The next day the copy was
handed TO him.
MIR " said that in his opinion, not only the vr
gnla delegation, but every member OF the House. had
right to attend at all meetings Of the committee; had
undoubted right to hear all It's proceedings, and to hear
the report read and TO know its contents and Tor this
plain that the committee acted as the agents OF the
House, and submitted their report to the House for its ac-
ton upon it, ae would repeat again. that he had no
knowledge that copy OF the report in the hands OF
Mr.. seldom. till informed Of il by Mr. RIcHARDsoN.
Ii the gentleman from Virginia IN the House, he
would CAY upon him to say whether what he had now
stated not correct.
MIR seldom said: In response to the call Of the gem
tleman from Ohio [Mr, vINroN,] will. with the indu-
which the copy Of the report referred to BY him came
my possession, and the disposition made by OF It,
Some egh, Or ten days since being il The Senate cham
mentioned to me that copy of SO much OF the intended
report oil the majority OF the special committee related
to the Virginia Communication had been placed by
one of the senators from Ohio in his possession, and
that he surprised to find that the reasoning OF the
report hostile to all Communication claims the part
OF the Virginia officers He further stated that his
gagements such not to allow him 20 the
report fully, and requested that. the matter originated
in the House, and might constitute the subject OF its
lion, would take the report and, alter conferng with
some OF my colleagues the subject take such course
in relation 10 il might deem proper. took the
copy and, after gancing hastily at it. submitted il to my
colleague, Mr. MlLLsoN, whom knew 10 be familiar
with the subject OF Virginia claims. Alter examining it,
he concurred with MIR. MASON and myself in consider
ing the reasoning of the report hostile TO all the Virginia
Communication claims and as considered in that
spect departure FROM the legitimate Subject Of nyes
CATION confded 10 the committee, determined TO make
inquiry of the chairman oil the committee the subject
and if practicable obtain revision OF that part OF the
port. The subject accordingly mentioned to Mr..
RICHARDSON by my colleague, who first saw him. He
expressed surprise that copy of the report should be in
our possession and, In answer TO an inquiry was IN
formed how IT was obtained He then, presume, had
with Mr. VINToN the conversation which has been de-
tailed by those gentlemen respectively In the course Of
the day, Mr.. VINroN had conversation both with Mr..
NELSON and myself, in which, as be has done here, he
explained how the report had into his
and how he had ntrusted 1t to young friend TO copy.
He then desired, although. he said be no impro
prety in the report being in the possession OF any
bcr OF the House yet the chairman of the committee
had expressed dissatisfaction at the course pursued by
him in relation 10 the report that the copy IN our pos
session might be delivered TO him. lreped that II would
give me pleasure relieve him IRON embarrassment but
that having received the report from Mr. MASON, felt
bound TO return il TO him. accordingly sent il that eve
ming 10 Mr.. Mason, who, as have understood, returned
it TO the senator from whom he had received IT.
Mr.. YINTON said that, The report was mere argu
men OF legal questions, be should without any hesta
ton, have permitted any to IT that wished to do
so there was nothing IN that could by possibility be
a matter OF secrecy
1lr. klCHAhDSUN asked tne UNANIMOUS consent oil
the House for permission to make explanation; but
Objection being made, leave was not granted
THE TEXAS BOUNDARY, AND GOVERNMENT FOR NEW
MEXICO.
The SPEAKER then announced the business before
the House 10 be the question the appeal OF Mr. How
ARD from his decision the previous day, ruling that
motion reconsider the vote OF that day, refusing
der the Texas boundary bill to third reading could not
be entertained
The SPEAKER explained at length this decision. There
had been two decisions by previous Speaker, affirming
that the second motion TO reconsider was admissible
when there had been change in the bill.
There others, he proceeded TO show, in which
THE decisions OF the Char had been different There
were decisions precisely similar questions,
least there were none on record which he could find
He adhered to his decision, oveuung the motion OF
i. Mr.. H.
Mr. HOWARD, his appeal ho,ng debatable, went on
to show that the proposition he had moved TO reconsider
was entirely different from the bill previously reoonsid
cred, and, that being so. his motion in order.
His object in moving ,2reconsider was to get IN his
ton as 10 the debts of Texas proposed in the bill He
did not desire its enactment in a shape which would
compel his State TO epudate three millions OF her debts
He then moved the previous question
Mr. DUER appealed to Mr.. II. to withdraw the de-
mand for the previous question, to permit him to make
a motion but
Many gentlemen Directing,
Mr. HOWARD declined.
Mr. DUER moved to lay the appeal on the table and
ed, when il not agreed to-yeas n, nays l23-as
follows:
YEAs-Messs. Alexander, Allen, Ashc, Averst, Bay,