Rhode Island Republican

From the Editor of the Aurora.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 15.

The House of Representatives this day, according to order, took up the judiciary bill from the Senate, upon motion of Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, which was opposed by Mr. Bayard, who moved to postpone the consideration to the 3d Monday in March next, which was seconded by Mr. Rutledge. And a debate ensued that continued in various points of postponement and other incidental questions, till 5 o'clock. Mr. Bayard's motion was lost. On a division, the ayes and noes being called, were as follow:

YEAS.

Messrs. Bayard, Boude, Cutler, Dana, Davenport, Dennis, Foster, Goddard, Griswold, Grove, Hastings, Hemphill, Henderson, Hill, Huger, Lowndes, L. K. Morris, T. Morris, Mattoon, Peirce, Plater, Read, Rutledge, Shepard, J. C. Smith, Stanley, Tallmadge, Tenney, Tillighast, Upham, Van Renselaer, Wadsworth, Walker, L. Williams, Woods—35.

NAYS.

Messrs. Alton, Archer, Bacon, Bailey, Bishop, Brent, Brown, Butler, Cabell, Claiborne, Clay, Clopton, Condit, Cutts, Davis, Dawson, Dickson, Elmendorf, Elmer, Eustis, Fowler, Giles, Gray, Gregg, Hanna, D. Heister, J. Heister, Helms, Hogg, Holland, Holmes, Jackson, Johnson, Jones, Leib, Milledge, Mitchell, Moore, Mott, New, Newton, Nicholson, Randolph, Smilie, I. Smith, J. Smith, of N. Y., J. Smith, of Vir. Jos. Smith, S. Smith, Southard, Stanford, Stanton, Talliaferro, Thomas, Thompson, A. Trigg, J. Trigg, Van Cortlandt, Varnum, Van Horne, R. Williams—61.

This may be expected to be about the state of the votes on the main question. Mr. Dennis, of Maryland, after this question, moved to postpone to Monday next, which was lost also, 60 to 37. After which Mr. Giles moved that the House now resolve itself into a committee of the whole upon the bill; this was opposed but carried, ayes 58, noes 34. The bill was then read in committee, which the House resumed, and then adjourned.

Feb. 16.

This day the judiciary bill, being the order of the day, was taken up, the debate was opened by Mr. Henderson, of N. Carolina, with a motion to strike out the 1st section; this was his maiden speech, and was as heightened as even Gouverneur Morris' for he repeated all the arguments of that Senator, even to calling the people their worst enemies. He was followed by Mr. R. Williams, of N. Carolina, who opposed his colleague, and repelled his arguments. He was followed by Mr. Hemphill, of Pennsylvania, against the repeal, who entered with very great ability into the merits of the question on the constitutional grounds; he spoke for one hour and a half, and tho' I cannot admit his arguments as solid, nor his particular politics, I will do him the justice to say, he delivered a much better and more candid speech on the object, than any one of the same politics that I heard in the Senate. After he had closed, some Member called for the question; Mr. Giles said, it was his intention to notice the arguments of the Pennsylvania Member, as he thought them entitled to notice. A call was then made for the committee to rise. Mr. Giles said he had no objection, but it was his intention to reply to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. This I suppose will take place to-morrow.

Dr. Leib laid on the table a resolution purporting to call for an enquiry into the necessity of the existing office of Secretary of the Navy, which was ordered to lie on the table.