Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-03-04

y In these votes we have further evidence of the
absence of sectional motives in egisatng upon the
admission of these States.
The two bills having been sent to the House of
and undergone the usual prelimi-
naries, they were made the special order in that
body for Wednesday, the Sth of June, and on each
day thereafter, Friday and Saturday excepted"
until they should be disposed Of; and at the APP
pointed time the House, in Committee of the
Whole, proceeded to consider them, in connexion
with two other bills affecting the boundaries of the
new States, with apparent intention on the part
of the majority to get them all "out of committee"
before the excepted days." for which other bust
ness had been specially assigned.
The bills relating to Michigan were taken up
first in order. They occupied the Committee of the
Whole during long sitting on Wednesday, (from
IL o'clock in the morning till near o'clock in the
EVENING" and also during all of Thursday even
until some time after midnight. At that late hour
the Arkansas bill was taken up, evidently against
the wish of large minority, already exhausted by
continuous session of sixteen or seventeen hours
who Of course resorted to the usual means of en-
deavoring to defeat the majority, by proposing and
debating amendments, &C.; and thus the sitting
which commenced at 10 o'clock on Thursday was
extended, without intermssion, to IL o'clock of the
ensuing day, when the contest ceased and the bills
were reported to the House.
1t was during this long sitting, after daylight in
the morning of Friday, that Mr.. ADAMS first offered
the amendment relating to slavery which is refer
red to in the speech of Mr.. STEPHENS. This
amendment was rejected in committee, there being
only Mry-tteo votes in its favor and subsequently,
on the 18th of June, when the bill was put upon
- ~ ,;io u~..aa, NIr. .AD.,rs =
offered the amendment In.,. ~. .l.eu, however,
no rote taken upon At, nor any debate; for, imme-
diately after the amendment was submitted call
was made for the previous question, which was
seconded, (yeas 126, nays 81 and which, under the
rules of that day, cut off all pending amendments.
The House was thus brought to direct vote upon
the test question of the third reading Of the BILL
which was ordered by vote of lat yeas to SO
nays, and the bill was Immediately afterwards pass
ed, yeas 143, nays so. The Michigan bill was
passed the same day; and on the test question of
ordering that bill to its third reading the vote was,
yeas 153, nays 49,
Messrs. John Quincy Adams, Heman Allen,
Horace Everett, Hiland Hail. and William Slade,
in company with twenty-five other Northern mem
bers, all voted in body against both bils-as well
against that admitting the free State of Michigan
against tho one admitting the Stare State of Ar
kansas. This again shows that such opposition as
there was to these measures did not arise from
merely sectional motives.
Mr.. STEPHENS errs when he states, in the revised
report of Speech that on vote the effect of which
was to allow "a vote to be taken on the amendment,
there were eighty in favor of aording the opportu-
nifty and Zone hundred and nine on eopposte side,
which prevented its 1.-THE opportunity to take vote
being offered" This vote of 100 to so was not on
the Arkansas bill, but upon an appeal from dcci-
sion Of the Speaker denying Mr.. ADAMS the floor
to explain and enforce the propriety of his amend
ment; decision which the House affirmed by a
majority of only ten votes, (97 yeas to 81 nays,)
the minority being the entire Opposition strength
in the House, and being composed of the Anti
jackson members from all quarters including alike
the political friends of Messrs. CALHOUN, WEB
sTER, WHITE, and HARRISON. 1t might well be
presumed that the gentlemen from the South, some
of them ranking amongst the most ardent defenders
of that section of the Union, who voted to give
Mr.. ADAMS the floor to urge his amendment, we're
fully competent to judge whether the proposition
itself, the disposition of the House towards it,
was such as to leopard any of the rights of their
constituents.
We infer (and to our mind it does not admit of
doubt) that Mr.. STEPHENS unintentionally cited
the wrong vote That which he intended to cite
was l26 to 81, such having been the vote on order
ing the previous question upon the third reading of
the BILL Under the rules of that day the previous
question had the effect not only of preventing de-
bate, but Of cutting off and preventing vote upon
any amendment that might be pending; and hence
it is that Mr.. STEPHENS charges the Northern
members who voted against the previous question
with contemplating violation of faith towards the
South Because they did not record their names
in favor of suppressing vote upon the amendment,
Mr.. STEPHENS charges them with an intention to
vote for it. This inference is as illogical as il is
unjust; for every one who wished to debate the
bill, and every one who had an amendment to offer,
as well as every one who thought the bill in any