Daily National Intelligencer

CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, JANUARY 3, 1815.

Mr. Wood, of Massachusetts, appeared and took his seat.

Mr. Champion and Mr. Jackson of Va. presented petitions from their respective districts, remonstrating against the opening and transportation of the mail on the Sabbath—Referred.

Mr. Winter presented the petition of Singleion Ke chum; which was referred to the committee on Pensions.

On motion of Mr. Wilson of Pa. the petition of Peter Audrain was again referred to the committee of Claims.

Sundry papers presented by Mr. Harris of Tenn. in support of G. Taylor's petition for a pension, were referred to the committee of Pensions.

Mr. Sherwood of N. Y. presented the petition of sundry inhabitants in the vicinity of French Mills, praying relief from Congress from injury sustained in their property from the presence of the army of the United States among them in the last winter—Referred to the committee of Claims.

Mr. Forsyth of Geo. presented the petition of James Johnson. of Savannah, the holder of evidence of claims to land in the Mississippi Territory (commonly called Yazoo Claims) which, owing to ignorance of the provisions of the act of 1803, he omitted to have recorded, and praying to be included in the provisions of the act passed at the last session for the relief of such claimants—Referred to the committee on that subject.

Mr. Lattimore of Miss. presented the petition of the President and Commissioners of the town of Mobile, praying that certain lots in the town belonging to the United States, may be vested in them for the use of the town; and other petitions respecting British claims to lands in that territory:—which were referred.

Mr. Fisk of N. Y. from the committee of Ways and Means, to whom was referred the amendments of the Senate to the bill for taxing certain manufactures, reported in favor of an agreement to all the amendments of the Senate, except that one which proposes a tax of eight per cent. ad valorem on all umbrellas or parasols. This report was referred to a committee of the whole.

UNIFORM BANKRUPT LAW.

Mr. Ingersoll of Pa. from the Judiciary committee, to whom was referred the petition of sundry citizens of New York on that subject, reported a bill to establish an uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States: which was twice read and referred to a committee of the whole House.

Mr. Pleasants of Va. from the Naval committee, to whom was referred the bill from the Senate authorizing the appointment of certain naval officers therein named, reported the same without amendment; and it was referred to a committee of the whole.

A message was received from the President of the United States, transmitting a report of the Secretary of the Treasury of the proceedings under the act for laying out the great western road—Referred to a select committee.

The amendments of the Senate to the furniture tax bill, were referred to the committee of Ways and Means.

NATIONAL BANK.

The House resumed the consideration of the unfinished business, being a motion to reconsider the vote to reject the bill to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States of America.

On this motion there arose a desultory but very interesting debate, which occupied the House from 12 to about 5 o'clock.

To give an accurate idea of this debate would require the labor of several days to write it off, and of as many papers to publish it. We must therefore content ourselves with very briefly stating the several grounds taken by different gentlemen who spoke on the one side or the other.

Mr. Hall of Geo. commenced the debate by assigning the reasons which had influenced him to move a reconsideration of the question; which were, generally, that though he was and should continue to be opposed to any Bank that could be established, unless within the District of Columbia, yet the state of the vote of last night gave him reason to believe that some plan might be adopted to meet the views of what was evidently a majority of the house on that subject. He therefore proposed, if the vote should be reconsidered, to call up the proposition laid upon the table by him some time ago respecting an issue of Treasury notes, and to move its reference, together with this bill, to the committee of Ways and Means, that from a combination of the principles of both, some measure might be adopted, which would subserve the public interest. He called upon gentlemen of the majority, in an impressive manner, to rally themselves around the public good, to sacrifice to each other a little of their own opinion, in order to serve the nation. Having to contend not only with a foreign enemy, but with internal traitors, it was high time, instead of putting themselves into the hands of merchants and men who are determined, if they could, to crush the present administration, to draw on the real solid resources of the nation, etc.

Mr. H. took occasion to express his disgust at the attempt, twice repeated, which he had witnessed, to prevent an individual from voting, because he had lent money to the government or held government security (meaning Mr. Ingersoll.) Such proceedings, he said, made his blood run cold. They required the friends of the government to unite, to beware how they act, instead of aiding those whose only object was to defeat every act calculated for the defence of the country, etc.

Mr. Alexander, of Ohio, made a few general remarks as to the readiness with which he should approach this question to re-consider what had been denounced as a rash, desperate and destructive measure. His remarks were evidently intended to reflect on the observations with which the Speaker had on the preceding evening prefaced his vote. He should feel no pain, he said, when acting from his own choice, in giving a vote which was to destroy a ruinous measure; he should rather rejoice in the opportunity of giving such a vote, and not complain that he did it with pain, etc.

Mr. M'Kee of Ky. favored the re-consideration of the bill, in the hope that, when reconsidered, it would be recommitted, and its features changed. He had voted for it in its present shape with much reluctance; he had so voted, however, because he believed the taxes could not be paid by the people unless they were aided by the establishment of a medium of general circulation, etc. He did not believe, in its present shape, that the bill would pass; but he did believe it might be so modified as to meet the views of a majority of the House.

Mr. Ingersoll of Pa. said he should vote for a re-consideration of the bill, because he was of the same opinion to-day that he was yesterday. He was not tenacious as to the plan of it, but a National Bank he believed to be indispensable, etc. He took occasion to remark, in allusion to the observation of Mr. Hall, that although he, with several other gentlemen of the house, possessed a small interest in the public stock, he had no idea that it could disqualify him or any one else from voting on this question, any more than on the tax or any other revenue or loan bills, etc.

Mr. Macon of N. C. said he should vote against re-consideration; for although he had of late uniformly entertained the opinion, that it would be convenient and expedient to establish a National Bank, he as firmly believed that there was no delegated power in Congress to establish such a Bank. He had given such votes as he thought calculated to improve or perfect the various bills before the house, but he must eventually vote against any bank. Mr. M. concluded his examination of this question by expressing the opinion that Treasury Notes would circulate and obtain as good a credit as the notes of the bank proposed to be established; and to those the nation must, he believed, at last resort, etc.

Mr. Robertson of Lou. was in favor of reconsideration, and made an animated appeal to those who were friendly to the establishment of a Bank, and yet had opposed this bill because the details did not exactly meet their views. He called upon them to sacrifice their particular prejudices, and not prostrate the public interest at the shrine of their own pride or independence of opinion. Scarcely any subject, he said, could come before the house, in regard to which gentlemen might not urge that there were certain of the details which did not meet their approbation, and for which they could not vote. This bill had been called a desperate, a dangerous measure. It might be so, Mr. R. said; but from the nettle danger we frequently pluck the flower safety. Nothing could be more dangerous than the very situation in which we now are; which could not be worsened even by the failure of the novel experiment which this bill had been pronounced to be, etc.

Mr. Alston of N. C. said he should vote against re-consideration. Believing no good could result from further attempts to unite conflicting opinions on this subject; he was in favor of putting it to rest, and letting the responsibility rest on the shoulders of those who had twice already defeated the bill, etc.

Mr. Duval of Ky. in advocating a re-consideration called upon those who had refused to sacrifice their individual opinions, to remember the sacrifices made by those of their own party, and to exhibit that liberality and spirit of mutual concession, without which there could be no legislation. He believed there was a decided majority in the House in favor of a National Bank, and he entreated gentlemen to consent to recommittal, to make one last effort to save the sinking credit of the country, etc. He dwelt at some length on the absurdity of every man in a public body clinging to his own opinion as the standard of perfection. Unless men yield occasionally their particular opinions on minor points and mere matters of detail, no majority could ever be obtained in favor of any particular measure. He had thus yielded his opinions when he voted for this bill, and he hoped a sufficient number would now do so to obtain a reconsideration of the bill.

Mr. Gholson of Va. conjured gentlemen to put an end to debate, and to act. Whilst they were debating, the Army was suffering for the want of necessary supplies—the nation was suffering at every point. He intreated gentlemen to permit the question to be taken.

Mr. Hawkins of Ky. addressing himself to the majority of the House, exhorted them to unite, and no longer suffer themselves to be driven from ground to ground, from shift to shift, by the pertinacity of a minority who openly disavowed any responsibility for the failure of measures which they were frequently the means of thwarting. He adverted to the majority which a day or two ago had appeared in favor of this bill, who had been driven from their ground by the pertinacity of the minority, in violation of the usages and decorum of legislation, etc. He appealed also to the liberality of those opposed to this bill on mere points of detail, whether an opportunity ought not to be afforded to those who were friendly to the principle to try this question again. He dwelt with much emphasis on the weight of responsibility attaching to every one who voted on this question, and the propriety of allowing them to vote again, on a vote on which the House was equally divided, after having an opportunity since to reflect on it.

Mr. Pearson expressed himself favorably towards a National Bank, but as strongly opposed to the bill now before the House, the vote on which he would not consent to reconsider, lest the bill might then pass, though he was willing to suspend the rule of the house forbidding a bill once rejected to be originated anew, so as to give an opportunity to obtain the establishment of a Bank on proper banking principles, etc.

Mr. Fisk of N. Y. said the very importance of this bill was a reason why a question decided as it had been, should be reconsidered; that, if a majority should not favor its passage in its present shape, it might be put in such form as should ensure it the support of a majority. The proposal of the gentleman who preceded him, to dispense with the rule, he considered as more objectionable by far, than the practice of re-considering a vote.

Brief as this abstract is, the Reporter is compelled to curtail it, and to state still more briefly the remainder of this day's proceedings.

Mr. Forsyth of Geo. at some length warmly contended for the reconsideration of the bill, avowing himself still friendly to it in preference to any other plan which could be proposed.

Mr. Calhoun was in favor of reconsideration of the bill, but on different grounds from Mr. Forsyth. He was and should continue opposed to the present bill.

Mr. Gaston, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Webster, and Mr. Grosvenor expressed themselves friendly to a National Bank on the principles they have heretofore advocated, but decidedly opposed to this, and therefore determined to vote against re-considering it, though they were willing to suspend the rule forbidding future consideration.

Mr. Wilson of Pa. advocated reconsideration of the bill, on the grounds of partiality to the form of the present bill, which he examined and supported by a train of argument going to exhibit its particular merits.

Mr. Hall then said he had made his motion with the hope of obtaining a compromise of conflicting opinions, and a modification of the present bill. But, finding its friends so wedded to it as to attempt to force it through the House, he withdrew his motion for a reconsideration.

Mr. Webster took this opportunity to lay upon the table the following resolution:

Resolved, That the rule of the house which prevents a subject once acted upon from being acted upon again during the same session, be suspended until otherwise ordered.

Mr. M'Kim renewed the motion to re-consider the vote on the Bank Bill; not from any intention to change his vote, but from a disposition to accommodate his friends on a question of so much magnitude.

Mr. Sharp of Ky. opposed, and Mr. Newton of Va. advocated the re-consideration—the one, on grounds of unabated hostility to the present bill; the other from a disposition to afford the utmost latitude to the consideration of a subject so highly important to the nation.

The question on re-consideration was at length decided by Yeas and Nays.

For re-consideration 89
Against it 71

And the question being again stated "Shall the bill pass?"—

Mr. M'Kee moved to recommit the bill to a select committee, and presented his views of the change which he conceived ought to be made in its provisions.

Mr. Butler of Vt. supported his motion, and in a speech of some length exhibited his views on the same subject.

Mr. Forsyth opposed the re-commitment with much zeal and eloquence on grounds of preference to the present Bill.

Mr. King of Mass. expressed his opinions generally in hostility to the establishment of any bank at this time; and in opposition to any compromise.

Mr. Findley advocated the re-commitment principally on the ground of opposition to that feature of the bill which requires the bank to make a loan to government—which he believed at once superfluous and inexpedient.

Mr. Oakley and Mr. Stockton advocated re-commitment with earnestness and ability, in order to procure a modification of the details. If modified as they believed it might be, they pledged themselves to vote for the Bank bill, and expressed their opinion that in that vote they would be joined by a majority of their political friends.

The question on re-commitment was decided by Yeas and Nays, as follows:

For re-commitment 89
Against it 71

And it was determined to recommit the bill to a select committee of seven members. And then

The House adjourned—about dusk.