University of South Carolina Libraries
. I - , : ' ' V^v CHER AW GAZETTE. " m.maclea* editor & proprietor. CIIERAW, S. C? TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1836 vqli wo.u. j Published ovcry Tuesday. TERMS. If paid within three months, . - - 3. 00 If paid withinthrco months after the close of the year, -------- 3. 50 If not paid within that time, . - - - 4. 00 A company of sir persons taking tiic paper at the same Post Office, shall be entitled to it at ?15, paid in advance, and a company of ten persons at ?20 ; provided the names be forwarded together, accompanied by the money. No paper to be discontinued but at the option of the Editor till arrearages are paid. Advertisements inserted for 75 cents j>er square the first time, and 37$ for each subsequent insertion. Deductions made to those who advertise by the year, and to merchants. Persons sending id advertisements arc requested to specify the number of times they are to be inserted t otherwise thev will be continued till ordered out. and charged* accordingly. (LTTho Postage must be paid on all communications sent by mail. KCHVr UI lut- uunc W MM A vpi.v to IV. Pafeot* Late V. S. Charge 8? Affaires 6/ France at Washington. Paris, 17th June, .1835. Sir : There no longer exists on our part any obstacle to the entire accomplishment of the treaty concluded on the 4th of July, 1831, between France and the U. States. The project of law relative to the indemnities reciprocally stipulated in that treaty, after having successively passed the two Chambers, has received the royal sanction. I say on our part; for every thing now depends on the Government of the United States; it belongs to them to remove the only abstacle that still subsists. By virtue of a clause inserted in Art. 1st, bv the Chamber of Deputies, the French ~y * Government must defer making the payments agreed upon, until that of the United States shall have explained the true meaning and real purport of divers passages inserted by the President of the Union in his mes. sage, at the opening of the last session in Congress, and at which all France at the first aspect was justly offended. The Government having discovered no. thing in that clause at variance with its own sentiments, or the colfcse which it hod intended to pursue, the project of law, thus amended on the 18th of April by the Chamber of Deputies, was carried on the 27th to tl?e Chamber of Peers. I herewith annex the expose which accompanied it. That document will show you, in a few words, in what light we consider the respective positions of the two countries. I also annex the report of the committee presented to the Chamber of Peers, on the 3th of June. You will thereby sec how far that House concured in the opinion of the Chamber of Deputies. Mr. Livingston has left Paris, without waiting for the vote of the Chamber of I PeiTF, leavi ig Mr.JBarton as Charg- s d'Af. faires. The letter by which he accredited }?m to the French Government, is of the 28th of April. You will find a copy of it subjoinod. In a note dated 27th, Mr. Livingston assigns as the cause of his departure, the silence observed by the French government in relation to a previous note of the 18th, in which that Minister, agreeably to orders from his government, demanded the erplan/tiinn ef an expression made use of by Mr. Serrurier in a note Ik? passed to Mr. Forjsyth at the time lie left. That explanation, sir, we will show ourselves very willing to furnish, if it should be asked for again, when we ourselves shall have received those which we have a right to expect. Annexed are copies of the two notes of the 18th and 27th. On the 25th, Mr. Livingston had addresscd to me a third note of great length, in which, whilst he forbears making allusion to the amendment introduced by the Chamber of Deputies, he fully enters into its principle and probable consequences, as you may ascertain by reading that paper. As long as the amendment was but a simple project, the iniative of wluch did not even oclong to the Government, I thought proper abstain from entering into any controversy on this subject with the Minister of a Foreign Government. Now that the project has becorwe a law by the concurrence of the two Chambers, and the sanction of the King, it is my duty to justify it against ohjections which are utterly grondless. I shall first recall a few facts. The project ot law relative to tiro execution ef the Treaty signed on the 4th of July 1832, had been presented three times to the Chamber of Deputies, viz. the Gth of April, 1833; the 11th of June of the same | year; and the 13th of January of the year following, when it was rejected by a majority of 8 votes on the 1st of April 1834. " The news of its rejection was known at Washington on the 6th of May, through a packet which sailed from Liverpool on the 6th of April. On the 4th of June, Mr. Serrurier informed the Secretary of State, that the King's Government had determined to present anew the project of law at the next session of the Chambers. The loss of the bill having occasioned the resignation of the Min. ister who had signed it, and this circumstance having caused different changes in the Cabinet, the Government could not definitively adopt that determination until the 8th of April. The brig Le Cuirassier, bearer of new instructions to Mr. Serrurier, had moreover met with a long and stormy passage. At the express request of Mr. McLane, then Secretary of State, Mr. Serrurier communicated, the next day, in writing, the declaration which he had already made verbally. His note is dated the 5tli of June. The reply of Mr. McLanc is of the 27th. In this reply, Mr. McLane states in express terms in the name of his (lover.unciit, that the President of the United States mil rely on the assurances Mr. Scrrurier lias been instructed to give him, and will wait hereof ter with confiience for the oppeal that is to be made to the new Chamber. Mr. Scrrurier, in his note of tiie 5th of June, had iucidontly observed that it was the intention of the French Government to present again theyrejectcd law at as early period as our Constitution would permit. That I intention was real { our desire was sincere; | but it naturally followed from the very nature and terms of the engagement, that it referred to no particular and fixed period that was left dependent eithcrgupon the different exegiencies of our internal situation, or upon the subject which both governments were equally anxious te attain. In the month of August, the Chambers were assembled, but merely for form, and for the ?olc purpose of complying with the provisions of the 42d article of the Charter No project of law was either presented or discussed. Mr. Livingston at Paris, and the President of the United States at Washington, having seemed to regret that the oppornuty of this accidental meeting had not been embraced to place again before the Chambers the project of law relative to the Treaty of the 4th of July, it was easy to make them understand, that in acting with that ? t . i i _ precipitancy, we would not oniv nave departed from all established usages, but compromitted, instead of securing the passage of the law. The same considerations were very naturally opposed to the request made at the subsequent period by Mr. Livingston, for a special session in the Fall. That Minister must no doubt have urged them with his government, since the latter showed itself entirely convinced of their validity and justness. The new Secretary of State, Mr. Forsyth, said in the month of October to Mr. Serrurier, " The President readily understands why this business has not beeen taken up at the opening of the session in AutiAin o/vtAiint (nr flip liipf flint f ills tuki nun uuvA/utiv tvi mv auw m?w? tiic demand made by Mr. Livingston of a special session in the Fall was declined. Mr. Forsyth it is true, added tat the President could not understand why the convoca tion ol the Chambers had been delayed until the last days of December, instead of the beginning of that month. But that observation falls before the fact, that by a cot currence of particular circumstances on which it would be useless to dwell, this meeting of the Chambers did in reality take place on the first of December. Nothing consequently could prepare the French government for the language of the message sent by the President to Congres. Wc were aware that that message wonld contain a statement of the transactions connected with tho treaty of tho 4th of July. Mr. Forvyth had on the 19th of November, given notice of it to Mr. Serrurier.? But Mr. Forsyth had at the same time in. if -I .. .1-_ r? :j . formed tnat aiinisicr, mui me i rjsiut-m would simply advise Congress to wait for the decisicn of the Chambers. What must then have been our astonish, mcnt when the message reached this side of the Atlantic ? And could it be expected thattlic French Government after having fulfilled the double duty of satisfying its dignity by recalling its minister from Washinton, and of redeeming the faith of treaties, by obtaining from the Chambers the appropriation necessary to the completion of , of the convention of the 4th of July ; after having tendered the minister of the United ! States his pasports; could it be expected, I ! repeat, that the French government would | not wait, before it resumed any communication on the subject with the government of the Union ; and l>efore it renewed with it the interrupted relations,that the letter would come forward and express itself in terms calculated to dispel the the unfortunate interpretations to which the message had gi ven rise? | Such is in fact and in substance the course i which the amendment introduced, by the Chamber of Deputies has pointed out to the government; such is the course which the government intended to have pursued, even if the law had not made it their duty. Mr. Livingstonfulhj admits in his note of the 4 tk of April, the right of foreign govmiments to take proper exception to the acts and language of the government tchich he represents. Should the President, " lie observes," do an official Executive act, atlecting a Foreign Power, or, use exceptionable language in 11 _ .1 1. i.:? addressing n, uiruugu ms iuuhmu) ui uuu theirs : should a law l?e passed injurious to the dignity of another nation; in all these, and other similar cases, a demand for explanation would be respectfully received* and answered in the manner that justice, and a regard to the dignity of the complaining nation would require." But he maintains that these principles, the wisdom of which is evident, are not applicable to an act by which the President, sole representative of the nation towards foreign powers, gives to Congress an account cf the situation of foreign relations. " The utmost freedom," says Mr. Livingston,?" the utmost freedom from all restraint in the details into which he is obliged to enter, of international concerns, and of the measures in relation to them, is essential to the projicr performance of this important part of his functions. lie must exercise them without having continually before him the fear of offending the susceptibility of the powers whose conduct he is obliged to notice. "Were any foreign powers, continues Mr. Livingston, " permitted to scan the communications of the Executive, the:r complaints, whether real or affected, would would involve the county in continual cot trover&ies; for the right being admitted, it would be a duty to exercise it. by demandi ing a disavowal of every phrase they aright t deem offensive, and an explanation of every 1: word to which an improper interpretation c could be given. The principle, therefore, c has been adopted, that no foreign power has a right to ask for explanations of any t thing that the President, in the exercise of s his functions, thinks proper to eommuni- e cate to Congress, or of any course he may e advise them to pursue." tl We cannot, sir, admit such principles; d we cannot admit it at least without condi- c tion or limit, in an absolute, general, and peremptory sense. c It does not depend upon a nation from ii the mere fact of its having adopted such, or c such a form of government,- to acquire with s regard to foreign powers, more lights than tl it would have had, or to arrogate to itself t! other rights than those which it would have a enjoyed under any other form of govern- c ment. f Nations are free to chsose, without any g constraint, the government, they please? F precisely for this reason,and under this con- * dition, that such a choice concerns them ex- t clusively, and that whatever that choice may t bo, it cannot affect the rights or injure the c legitimate interests of other nations. i Now it is the acknowledged right of e- ? very Government, when the legal represen- c tative, or when the official organ of another government, expresses lwmself publicly c in reference to it, in language which is deem- c ed offensive, to demand an explanation of ( it. Sucli a right the Constitution of the U. s States can neither abolish, modify ?r res- v ' ' * *- 1 /...iluitin r incr. u is an iiucniauuuui n^iu ^uuuiumw v tcrnational.)-It suits the people of the Uuited c States to divide the power of the Union be- t tween a President and a Congress. J3e it c so. It suits them to oblige the President t to give publicly, to Congress, an account d of the state of foregn relations. Their t right is unquestionable. But that the Pre- r sident of the United States, the official or- I gan, the legal representative of the Union 1 towards foreign nations, thereby acquires r right to express himself, publicly, of for- t eign governments in language offensive to t those governments ; that he should, in as- s serting the liberty, the freedom necessary r for such communications, dispense with all a reserve in his language, and with all respon- s sibility towards the powers whom that Ian- } guage concerns, is what we cannot ad- c mit. ii Irresponsibility (Tinviolabilitie) whether t it relates to persons, to acts, or to worus, irresponsibility, when it is legally estalished, c is a pure national institution, a purely internal regulation, and can never be used as an t argument in the intercourse which govern- 't mqnts hold with each other. If it were o- t therwise, and we were disposed, after the c example of Mr. Livingston, to carry the C argument to its extreme consequences, it ' s might bemaintaincJ t at tie Pr3siJei.t of the c United States has the right, provided it be f in a message to Congress, to impute publicly, to foreign governments and to foreign t nations the most odious acts ; the most per. t ve.se intentions; to hold them up publicly a to the animadversion of the world, without v these governments or these nations having s the right to manifest the slightest resent- r ment, since, according to this very strange v doctrine, they would not even be allowed a to take official notice of it. ii To state such a doctrine, is to refute it. a However, sir, we do not wish to exagerate any thing, Mr. Livingston is perfectly t right, when he says that the cause is, in a i general sense, common to all free countries: That all governments founded on tne ciivi- c sion of power and on the publicity of de- d bates, have an interest in repelling, on the part of foreign powers, any interference J with the communications which the Prince ( and his ministers in constitutional monar- c chies, and in repuclics the magistrates entrusted with executive power, are called up- t on tohnake to the Legislature. And this is I j the reason, as Mr. Livingston very judi. ii ciously observes, fhat in France and in En- i gland, the language of the royal speeches \ is so reserved in every thing that concerns v Foreign relations: and it is this same mo- t tivc, as you will observe, sir, to the cabinet c ' of Washington, that has directed the con- c duct of France in relation to the message of c President Jackson.?If the expression con- < tained in that message had been inserted in e a proclamation, or any other act of the ex- s ecutivc power of the Union, we would at c once have called for an explanation. Out i of rcsoect for the very nature of the act, t 1 ? the French Government deemed it a duty to manifest the sentiments it felt on that occasion, by instantly recalling its minister, and stating in a communication the motives for that recall; but it did not ask for explanations ; it was contentdd to expect them from the justiee of the government of the United States , and from the ancient friendship of the American nation, not doubting that the Government of the United States would appreciate the difference in such cases, between answering and an interpellation, and preventing by a spontaneous determination, by explanations readily ofTered, a misunderstanding always to be regretted. The amendment of the Chamber of Deputies is conceived in the same, spirit of reserve and conciliation. It docs not make it the duty of the French government to ask for explanations; it merely supposes they will receive them, we were not mistaken, sir, in believing that the government of the United States would appreciate that difference, since Mr. Liviugston, as he himself observes, hastened as early as the 20th of January last, when the 1 message of President Jackson had been on! ly known a few days, to offer us cxplanai tious at great length, of every, passage of that message which treated of the relations . between the United States and France; and since, that step and the explanations con' 1 < ained in his note of the 29th of January it lave received, as he informs us by his note tl >f the 2j3th of April, the entire approbation s< if the President. a Mr. Livingston was not astonished that p; hose explanations as long as they were pre- tl ented only upon his personal responsibilty, is lid not produce upon us the effect he intend, a d; but he supposes that being now clo- a hed with the approbation of the Presi- t( lent, they must satisfy all that the iiiest sense of national honor could desire. is He therefore maks it a point in his note if the 25th, to report and to dcvelope them n the hope that the French* government by v examining them anew, under the impres- tl ion that they had become the expression of tl lie sentiments of the President, would deem tl hem sufficient. He is so much the more p inxious to impart to us his own conviction P in this subject, as he deems it impossible t( or the government of the United States to n ;o any further. lie even seems to be ap- h irehensive that future events which he need g lot specify, designating thereby, no doubt, b he adoption of the amendment "of the Cham- it >er of Deputies by the other two branches s >f the government may hereafter render h mproper any allusion to explanations pre- t( ;ented under the influence of different cir- s :umstances. c We sincerely wish, sir, not to add to the lifficulties of the situation in which the two lountries are respectively placed. The I jucstion of date, to which Mr. Livingston o ;eems, in this Case, to attach an importance 1) vliich it belongs not to us to appreciate, Iocs not in any way alter either the nature o >r extent of the duties which are prescribed d o us. If satisfaction had really been giv- ! b n to thejust susceptibility of the French na- ! 2 ion as early as the 29th of January, (the ti late of Mr. Livtngston's first note,) and c herfore previous to the adoption of the a- o nendinent under consideration by the Cham- p ?er of Deputies, or as early as the 27th of fi Vpril, (the date of Mr. Livingston's 2nd o iote,) that is to say, befo^ the adoption of P his- same amendment by the other two jt tranches of the L gislature, we would be ti incerely gratified. The more the govern- tl nent of the United States would have shown c : willingness to explain itself the more we n hould be ourselves disposed to find the ex- " flanatious satisfactory, and to view the soli- o :itude of that government as a testimony p n favor of the intentions which had dicta- is ed the message of the President. a We will simply observe before we pro- if :eed: ^ First, That even supposing the cxplana- v ions, given by the note of the 29th January, n o have been such as we might have wished p hem, they were on the 18th of April, the p lay of the passage of the amendment in the ? Chamber of Deputies, nothing more than the F rkfth** novcnnnl sentiments S Ill J|/|Vs V-Aj/1 OOOIVII V* >f Mr. Livingston. This is an observation t< hat did not escape his notice. g We will also observe that by thepublica- w ion of Mr. Livingston's correspondence,the d he Government of the XJ, S. had excited igainst him such a feeling of irritation that C t would have been out of our power, even d upposing that we had considered that cor- a espondence as containing nothing but what t< ras right and proper, to avail onrselvcs of ? I document bearing his signature, to repel v II one or the other of the Chambers the b imendment under consideration. P I will now proceed to the examination of p1 he explanations which have been offered to k is." r< Mr. Livingston is right in thinking that >ur objections to the message of the Prcsi- o lent are confined to these two points, * 1st, The message impeaches the good F aith of his Majesty's Government, a 2d, It contains a threat to secure the exe- ir ;ution of the treaty by the fear of reprisals, o It is indeed under this point of view that C he message of President Jackson excited in e ?rance the greatest indignation. The Cab- I ?. .ri\r?L:?i? ?.:n ?j;I? h IIUI Ol *? usiiuigiuii ?ill itauu^ auiiii1. mai ? f the allegation were true, the indignation vould be just. No government, no people, o vould for one moment bear itself either to I he direct or indirect imputation of a want S >f good faith, to the idea of another Gov. n xnment or another people endeavoring to tl >btain from it through rtibnace, what would C >nly be granted by it to justice. It must ii jqually be admitted that when the impres- t] ;ion produced by the appearance of any < tl locumcnt is gt-neral; when the impression f s felt, not only by the whole nation whom e he document concerns, but even by foreign- t< jrs, by uninterested people, by persons the d east disposed to take a part in the contest, v he very universality of that impression is a p sufficient evidence against the general tenor n >f the document. s If we examine in detail the- message of ii he President of the'Unitcd States, (I mean f hat part of it which relates to the relations c >etween the United States and France,) it ii vill possibly be found that passing succes- ti uvely from phrase to phrase, none will be h net with that cannot bear an interpretation s norc or Jess plausible; none of which* o itrictly speaking, eannot be said that it is a tl simple expose of such or such a fatt true in tl fself, or the assertion of such or such a right 1< vhich no one contests, or the performance s )f such or such an obligation imposed on b he President by the very nature of his func- a ions. There will certainly be found several it n which the idea of impeaching the good s aith'of the French Government, or of act- n ng upon it through menace or intimidation, c s more or less disavowed. a Yet when the whole succession of facts s taken into view; when we perceive the s :arc which seems to have been taken to pre- d sent them in an unfavorable light, without naking allowance for circumstances which Jxplained them, without paying any regard j o considerations which the government of I he United States itself had previously ad- ; c mitted : when we see at the end of this im-1 Ii iterrupted scries of allegations, which have Al le appearance of wrongs, for the sole rea3n that they are made to rest on isolated _ nd incomplete statements, the unexpected reposition, the extreme proposition to say le least, to seize upon French property, it i impossible at first view, it is even difficult fter reflection, to escape the thought that so 11 this part of tftfe message had been writ- Gf 211 for the double purpose stated above. je It is not so, however; at least we hope it i not. But to banish entirely such an idea, what jni 'ouM benec(?ssary? Nothing but what is tb erysinfple. We do not here contend abdut ig lis or that phrase, this or that allegation, tfo lis or that expression; we contend about pr le intention itself/which has dictated that St art of the message. If it be true that the jii 'resident of the United States, in presenting op > Congress a statement of the facts con- . ected with the Treaty of the 4t1i df July, cc ad no intention to cast any doubt on the bj ood faith of the French government; if it e true that the President of the United States la 1 proposing to Congress to decrece the 0l L'izure by force of arms of French property, ad not the intention to assume with regard > France a menacing attitude, we cannot m ee how hfc could find any difficulty in de laring it. l" Is such a declaration really contained* in w fr. Livingston's note, addressed to the ? 'rench go\ ernment on the 29th of January, r in that which the same Minister left at jM is departure on (lie 27th of April? We would be equally at a loss to affirm r to deny it;?and for this reason it is evi- ^ cut that neither the one nor the other can ^ e considered su/icicTit. The note of the j) 9th of January is intended to discuss, con- C? adictorily with the French government the re orrectness of facts asserted in the message cc f President Jackson. It is intended to tj1 rove that the view taken by him of these sj, icts is at least plausible. It is in the midst yj f this bug disquisition that two or three ^ hrases are incidentally thrown out, on the jn ist confidence which the government of cc le United States has always entertained in ^ le sincerity of the Frencli government; onfidence which Mf, Lividgston always ^ lade it a duty to fosteiy and which, accord- jn )g to him, is not in contradiction with any cc f the ideas or allegations expressed1 in the jj lessage. The note of the 25th of April, ; chiefly intended to make an indirect and nticipated examination of the amendment Produced by the Chamber of Deputies. ^ Vhile upon this examination, and with a tj( idw to prove that any demand for eXpla- g( ations would in futur* be useless in fact, m nd inadmissable in* principle. Mr. Li v. lgston refers to the testimony given by him ^ 1 his first note, to the good faith 61 the ^ 'rench government; he refers to subsequent rc anction given by the President to the con?nts of that note; he dwells on the para- sj( raph of the message of the President, in -hich all idea of threat is, he says, expressly isa vowed. . . You will easily conceive, Sir, and the 'abinct of Washington will, we think, un- ^ erstand it also, that such phrases incident. ".c Hy inserted in documents, the purport and mor of which are polemical, and surround- or d, in some measure, by details of a controersy which is besides not always free from itterness, cannot dispel sufficiently the im. su ression produced by tlk perusal of the mes- or ige, nor strike the mind as would the same ^ lea expressed in terms simple, positive, di. or ?ct, and unaccompanied by any rccrimina. . . ans concerning facts or incidents no fonger t!(fany importance. Such is the motive, t,( hich, among many others, has placed the 'renbh Government in the rnipossifclfify of y ccedmg to the wish expressed by Mr. Liv- ,a lgston tow ards the coriblusioti of his note hc f the 25th of April, by declaring (to the lhambcr of Pee rsprobably,) that previous xplanations given by the Minister dtf the Jnited States, and subsequently approved a y the President, had satisfied it. Pr The impression produced by the perusal ( . f the message' was deep. It was so in P1 ranee, in Europo, and even in tnc United ^ States; the debates in Congress, and public otoriety sufficiently prove the fact. Under nl tie weight of this impression, the French jrovernmeat did not hesitate to place itself s,! i a situation to meet the engagement con- ai racted in the name of France. In pausing ?' here for the present, and waiting for the rc ulfilment of those engagements to be claimd, or expecting them to he claimed, in urms consistent with the regard which is its rc !ue, it is not afraid to be accused,nor France, - . _ , _ r al irhicn it represents, 01 oeing accused 01 ay- ? re dating national honor by any number of tillions ichich it could withhold, as a compen- th ation for an injury offered to it. Mr. Liv- in igston is the first to repel such an idea. c< ar froriT it, the French Government will w onsider as a fortunate day, the one in which : will be able to deliver up honorably the a! its/ that lies in its hands; but each State B as duties to perforin towards itself) each pr ituation has its exigencies. Mr. Livingston p'J bjects to the idea of seeing the President of cc ic United States give a new testimony to gr ic good faith of the French Government, di jst such a step, reasonable and just in itself, y< hould not appear to be exclusively dictated pr y justice and by reason. lie will not be b< stonished if the French Government, on to s side, attaches an equal importance to cd how that an acknowledging openly a Jcgiti- m itcte debt, and declaring itself ready to dis- H harge it, it has exclusively consulted reason C< nd justice. te You are authorized, sir, to read the pre- te, ent despatch to Mr. Forsyth, and if he w esires, let him take a copy of it. it Accept, Sir, &c. &c. &c. (Signed) V. BROGLIE. gi ? _ tu Scest thou the man wise in his own cou- pr cit; there is more hope of a fool tlian of cc iim. of I (Hitract of the Proceedings of the Tweittffoarth Congress. First Set" Nlou. ix slxate. January' 25. The Chair presented a report from tl.e M scretary of the Treason*, in reply to a relution of the Senate, calling for the amount Jtjj ' public lands disposed of, which was orred to be printed. Mr. Linn offered the following resolution: Resolved, That tlic Secretary df War form the Senate whether, in- his opinion, e present military force of the United States sufficient to garrison the fortifications on e seaboard, and at the same time give otcctiou to the inhabitants residing in the ates and Territories bordering Otrtho loan frontier. If not, what force will, in his inion, be necessary to such proteotibn. On motion of Mr. VV liite, the Senate pro. eded to consider the resolutions introduced r Mr. Benton. Mr. Southard addressed the Senate at [igth, until half past 3 o'clock, when withit concluding, lie yielded die Doer. January 26. The chair laid before tlie Senate, a meorial from'thfe Senate and House of Recsentatives of the State of Michigan. Objections were made to receiving tlie U . U/w>^i LI-'.../ln/tL?c TlntAn .'lUIUUf uy MC3313I I '.OllUI Xljfwu) g,'and Calhoun, or. the ground that the peion purported tO'comefijom a body which id no existence, the Staie of Michigan, was ailed god that to receive the petition, ouki be tantamount to recognizing the aim of the Territory to the rights apperiding to membership in thfe UniOft.' Mr. avis of Massachusetts, contended that reliving the petition, could no more .affect the lation of the territory to the Ihaion, to relive the memorial than it would determine e ownership of a ship, that a petitioner lould j>etitioii Congress As its owner.? lotions were made to lay it on the'ttable, id not to receive it, but they were decided the negative. My. Clayton moved1 to reive and refer it to the Commit 63S- on the (mission of Michigan into the Union, Ltli a condition similar to that annexed by ie House of Representatives upon leceiv. g the same memorial, that is received as >ming from private individuals. "The contion was struck out, on motion of Mr. ugglcs, by a vote of 12 to 30; and the otion to recieve and refer was agreed to. Mr. Benton's resolutions to appropriate e surplus revenue to* the purposes of na>nal defence were next taken up, and Mr. Milliard resumed and finished his rcaricsi The resolutions, and also the subject of e memorial from Philadelphia for the aboion of slavery were postponed till to-morw. Tfce Senate then proceeded to the conleration of executive business. January $7. A Kill fmm (lift FT/mica rtf RmrMPntn. res, received this morning, making'ao adtional appropriationdor the suppre&ion of utilities with -the Seminole Indiata, was ad twice, and referred to the Committee l Finance. Mr. Knight, from the Committee on manacturcs, to which had been referred the bject, reported a bi]F to repeal the duties 1 certain imported articles, and'to* reduce e duties on others; which was read, and tiered to a second* reading.* Mr. Benton offered the following resoluhi; which lies- one day for considers>i?: Resolved, That the Committee for the istrict of Columbia be instructed-to inquire to the expediency of abolishing lottery :kets within this' District. Mr. E wing, fornv the Committe on Pub: Lands, reported a bill to appropriate, for limited time, Mn, with amendments, and special report; which* Was ordered to be inted. On motion of Mr. Clay, tyOOO extra coes of the report were ordered to be print1 Mr. Webster frdm theCommittee on Fi. incc, reported without amendment, a bill aking further appropriation for suppresng hostilities with the Seminole Indians, id asked for the immediate consideration 'the bill, as the state of the country requid its passage with the utmostdespatch. The bill [appropriating $500,000] was tain up for consideration, and ordered to its ading. . Mr. Webster asked for the third reading I this time. Mr. Clay said lie should be glad to hear e communicatiohs from the Deputies read, order to see whether they gave any ac>unt of the causes of this war. No doubt hatcver may liave been tlje cause, it was ?cessaiy to'put an end to the war itself by I the possible means within our power.? ut it was a condition, altogether without ecedent, in which the countiy- was now iced. A war was raging with the most rar* irous violence within our borders; Coness had been in session nearly 2 months, iring which time this conflict was raging; ;t of the causes of the war, bow it was oduced, if the fault was on onq side or on)th sides, in short, what had lighted up the rch, Congress was altogether uninforat?!, and no inquiry on the subject had been adc by either branch of the Legislature, e should be glad if the chairman of the Dmmiitee on Finance, or of the Commit-3 on Indian Affairs or any eno dse, would II him how this war had buret forth, what ere its cause, and to whom the blame of was to be charged. Mr. Webster replied that he could not vc any answer to the Senator from Kencky. It was as much a matter of suriseto 1 iiill, as to any one, that r.o official mi muni cation had bven tn;*dc.to Congress* * the war** \