SENATE. ] Election of President and Vice President-Mode of Counting Votes. SATURDAY, February 4. Mr. CLAY presented a list, on parchment, of additional names of British authors to the address which he had submitted to the Senate the other day. He moved that it be printed with the other names attached to the address, and be referred to the select committee raised on that subject; which was accordingly ordered. He also moved the appointment of an additional member of the select committee; which was ordered. Mr. C. also presented a petition from sundry American authors, praying amendments in the copyright law. They represent the importance of native literature, and the propriety of extending to it reasonable encouragement. They state that, owing to the fact that booksellers in this country can possess themselves of and publish new works as they issue, from time to time, from the British press, without any charge on account of the copyright, American authors of similar works are unable to obtain for their copyrights a fair compensation. Mr. C. understood that the course of this business was, that American booksellers have their agents in Great Britain, who, as soon as a new work makes its appearance, transmit it to them by the first packet. Sometimes it is received from the packet at the Narrows, and the vessel being detained there a short time, from some cause or other, by the time she arrives at the wharves the work is published and ready for distribution. This extraordinary despatch is effected by means of steam presses, and the hundreds of hands employed by some of the booksellers. The consequence is, that the work is often slovenly published, on bad paper, with bad types, and omitting maps, diagrams, engravings, and other illustrations. This the first publishers feel themselves constrained to do, lest some rivals shall publish a cheaper edition than that which they have issued. Purchased in this defective form, no one can get the genuine production of the British author without sending abroad for it, as is sometimes done. Mr. C. understood that the business of republishing in this country late British works was principally confined to two highly respectable houses in New York and Philadelphia, of whom he did not mean to say one word in disparagement. They merely availed themselves of the actual state of things, and undoubtedly placed the American public under obligations for supplying them so rapidly and so cheaply with the latest effusions of the British mind. If the foreign author is justly secured in his rights of property, the practical consequence will probably be, that he will sell his copyright to some American publisher, the work will be carefully and deliberately printed, without mutilation or abstraction, and will be in a condition worthy of preservation. Mr. C. moved the reference of the petition to [FEBRUARY, 1837. the select committee heretofore appointed; which was ordered. Mr. NILES, referring to the memorial from American authors, said they had gone one step beyond what had ever been done. They were not satisfied with obtaining the right to the productions of their own minds; they asked Congress to prohibit, for their benefit, the use of the productions of others. This he opposed. Mr. PRESTON was not adverse to granting copyrights to foreign authors. He had formerly expressed himself in favor of this grant to foreign authors, which might have been a motive for sending petitions on the subject; and all his inclinations were still decidedly in favor of the proposed measure. He believed, also, that Congress possessed the constitutional power to pass it, and by that part of the constitution which provides for the promotion of knowledge. We had been in the daily habit, Mr. P. said, of appropriating to our use the productions of minds beyond the Atlantic, without any recompense. We had luxuriated in the works of Sir Walter Scott without any remuneration to him, at the time when he was toiling night and day to pay a debt; when, if he had received from us the thousandth part of the value of his works, the debt would have been paid. Mr. P. had always regarded this as an instance of ingratitude, which of itself induced him very strongly to the support of this measure. Mr. CLAY, in reply to Mr. NILES, said he was very glad of the benefit of his suggestions, and they would doubtless receive the special attention of the committee. But he thought he would be satisfied that no such mischief was intended as he supposed. The whole object was to put foreign authors on the same footing on which our own authors are in England. He thought the extension of copyrights would not, on the whole, make any addition to the cost of the books. The reference and printing were ordered. Mr. GRUNDY, from the select committee appointed to consider and report on the mode of examining and counting the votes for President and Vice President, and whether any votes have been given by persons not competent under the constitution, made a special report thereon; which was read. The report states that in some instances not more than four or five electors have been chosen in some of the States, who are officers of the General Government, (deputy postmasters,) and that such votes are, in the opinion of the committee, not in conformity with the provisions of the constitution; but at the same time the few votes thus given will not vary the result of the election, as it was not contemplated by any one that the appointment of one ineligible elector would vitiate the vote FEBRUARY, 1837.] Election of President and Vice President-Mode of Counting Votes. [SENATE. of his State. The report concludes with recom- | with regard to the State of Missouri, and under mending the adoption of the following resolutions: Resolved, That the two Houses shall assemble in the chamber of the House of Representatives, on Wednesday next, at 12 o'clock, and the President of the Senate shall be the presiding officer; that one person be appointed a teller on the part of the Senate, and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to make a list of the votes as they shall be declared; that the result shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall announce the state of the vote, and the persons elected, to the two Houses assembled as aforesaid, which shall be deemed a declaration of the persons elected President and Vice President of the United States; and, together with a list of votes, be entered on the journals of the two Houses. Resolved, That in relation to the votes of Michigan, if the counting or omitting to count them shall not essentially change the result of the election, they shall be reported by the President of the Senate in the following manner: "Were the votes of Michigan to be counted, the result would be, for A. B. for President of the United States, votes. If not counted, for A. B. for President of the United States, votes. But in either event A. B. is elected President of the United States." And in the same manner for Vice President. Mr. NORVELL said that the resolutions were joint resolutions. The first prescribed the usual manner in which the two Houses assembled together on the second Wednesday in February, for the purpose of counting the votes for President and Vice President of the United States. To this, of course, he had no objection. The second resolution, in relation to the votes of Michigan, declared, in substance, that if they were not essential to the election of a President, they should be announced, but need not be received as good. Their reception, then, as sound votes, depended upon a contingency which it was known would not happen. He called for a division of the motion of the Senator from Tennessee, in order that he and his colleague might have an opportunity of recording their votes against the second resolution. Michigan, when the people of that State gave their votes for presidential electors, was a sovereign State, acknowledged to be such by an act of Congress of the United States. She was now, before her electoral votes were to be counted, a sovereign State of this Union, acknowledged to be such by another act of the Congress of the United States. He had, therefore, risen to enter his most solemn protest, in behalf of the people of Michigan, against any decision of this body, or of Congress, which would, even by implication, have the effect of preventing their electoral votes from being counted for President and Vice President of the United States; and upon the motion to adopt the second resolution, he requested that the yeas and nays might be taken. Mr. GRUNDY observed that the committee were unanimous for reporting the second resolution. The same course had been pursued the like circumstances; and when Senators recollected that this was the very place where the rock lies which may destroy this Government, they would perceive that the committee had good reasons for recommending the resolution objected to. Suppose, said Mr. G., the two Houses should differ and separate, and suppose the House should refuse to send for the Senate again: where will be your President or Vice President? Though he had been one of the most anxious for the admission of Michigan, yet he thought it better, under the circumstances, that her vote should not be counted, except in the way provided for by the second resolution. To count the vote could do no good, inasmuch as it would not vary the result; and it might do harm. No man was more anxious than he was for the admission of Michigan; yet he must express the opinion that she was not a State of this Union when she gave her vote. Mr. NORVELL said that, if this Union should ever receive a shock, as intimated by the Senator from Tennessee, it would arise from the practice of injustice by this Government towards one or more of the States of the confederacy and not from the right decision of such questions as the one now pending. The reception of the votes of a State entitled to vote for the Chief Magistrate of the nation, by whom she, as well as the other States, was to be governed, could never endanger the Union. The result of the late election, he knew, could not be varied by the votes of Michigan; and less hazard would, therefore, be encountered at this time in properly deciding the question upon receiving the votes of States in similar circumstances with Michigan, than at any other time. The case of Missouri, quoted by the Senator from Tennessee in support of the second resolution, was not, upon this point, a case analogous to that of Michigan. Missouri was a State when her electors were chosen, but she was not a State of the Union when the two Houses of Congress assembled to count the electoral votes for President and Vice President. She was not admitted until some months afterwards; but the State of Indiana did present a precisely analogous case to that of Michigan. Indiana, when her electors were chosen, had formed her constitution and State Government; but she was not admitted into the Union until some time in the succeeding December. She became, however, a member of the Union before the electoral votes were counted. When the two Houses assembled, and, in counting the votes, came to those of Indiana, objection was made to their reception. The two Houses separated. Some discussion arose in both on the subject; but, before the point was directly decided by either, a message was sent by the House of Representatives to the Senate, that they were ready to proceed in the count. When they came together again, the votes of Indiana were counted, and recorded among the SENATE.] Abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia. electoral votes of the other States. Such is exactly the situation of Michigan. But he had not risen to provoke debate. His object was simply to protest against the principle of the second resolution reported by the Senator from Tennessee, and to ask for himself and his colleague the poor privilege of recording their names against it. He did not know that they would be sustained by the vote of any other Senator present. Mr. CLAY said that the committee had followed exactly the course adopted in the case of Missouri; and the Senators from Michigan would see that there was to be no exclusion of their votes, though no use might be made of them. Whether they were counted or not, the result would be the same. Now, when gentlemen reflected for a moment upon the operations of this Government, the difficulties to be settled, the important questions pending, and especially the one as to the election of a Chief Magistrate, they would see at once the necessity of avoiding doing any thing which would have the effect of creating excitement, or throwing any difficulty in the way at this particular juncture, when they were about to decide on so very important a question as would have to be disposed of on Wednesday next. With regard, then, to what the Senator from Michigan (Mr. NORVELL) had said as to Michigan being similarly situated to Missouri and Indiana, when they were admitted into the Union, and yet they were permitted to vote, he could not agree with him. The case of Michigan was not exactly that of Missouri, nor that of Indiana. The act of Congress passed admitted her on certain conditions, and, having accepted those conditions, she became a State, and performed all her functions as a State, and had given her votes for President and Vice President; and but for the formality of this resolution, which was deemed necessary by the committee, she was put upon precisely the same footing as the States which had been mentioned. Whilst, then, he admitted there was some slight difference between the case of Michigan and that of Missouri and of Indiana, he could not admit that Michigan should vote, except in the manner pointed out in the resolution; for he thought, under all the circumstances connected with this matter, it would be better to take the course recommended by the committee. Mr. CALHOUN remarked that, notwithstanding what was said by gentlemen to the contrary, during the debate on the admission of Michigan, they would now see that she was a State, de facto, at the time she formed her constitution. Now, if they applied the reason of that case to this, what was the result? Michigan was not a State in this Union when her Senators were elected, nor when she voted for President and Vice President. The case was really a clear one, and any reason which would exclude these votes ought to have excluded her Senators from taking their seats on this floor. He did not believe that doubtful [FEBRUARY, 1837. questions of this kind should be waived; and this question should be settled at once. He should, therefore, feel himself bound to vote against the resolution. Mr. LYON asked what course the committee would have recommended in case the vote of Michigan had varied the result. Would Michigan in such case be deprived of her vote? Mr. L. referred to the vote of Indiana, which, under similar circumstances, had been counted, and contended that Michigan was as much entitled to count her vote as was the State of Indiana. He thought the Senate would not make so unjust a discrimination between the two States as the resolution contemplated, and he would unite with his colleague (Mr. NORVELL) in protesting against it. Mr. GRUNDY replied that the gentleman could not expect him to answer a question which the wisest of their predecessors had purposely left undetermined. What might be done under the circumstances adverted to by the Senator from Michigan, should they ever occur, the wisdom of the day must decide. Mr. PRESTON concurred in all the views taken by his colleague in regard to this question. The first resolution reported by the committee was adopted, without division; and the second was adopted-yeas 34, nays 9, as follows: Buchanan, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Dana, YEAS.-Messrs. Bayard, Benton, Black, Brown, Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Grundy, Hendricks, Hubbard, Kent, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, Linn, Moore, Nicholas, Page, Prentiss, Rives, Robbins, Robinson, Sevier, Southard, Swift, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wright—34. NAYS.-Messrs. Calhoun, Fulton, Lyon, Morris, Niles, Norvell, Preston, Walker, Wall-9. MONDAY, February 6. Abolition of Slavery in the District of Mr. TIPTON said that he was requested to present to the Senate two memorials, signed by citizens of Carroll and White counties, in the State of Indiana, praying Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. These petitions, said he, are printed papers, couched in language both decorous and respectful, and signed by citizens of great respectability. I acknowledge, said Mr. T., the right of the people to petition Congress for a redress of their grievances, and I feel it to be my duty, as one of their representatives on the floor of the Senate, to present their petitions, and to ask for them a respectful consideration; but I feel it to be due to the petitioners, to the Senate, and to myself, to state respectfully but firmly, that my reflections on this subject have brought me to a conclusion very different from that which they seem to have arrived at. I am unable to perceive, sir, whence it is that Congress derives the power to interfere FEBRUARY, 1837.] Mexico Reprisals for Non-Satisfaction of Claims. with slavery in the District of Columbia. | It is contended that Congress has exclusive legislation over the District of Columbia. If that be granted, it is but a delegated and limited power, not original, derivative. Slavery existed in Virginia, Maryland, and other States, before the federal constitution was adopted; slavery then belonged exclusively to the several States, and there it still remains; their entering into the Union did not yield to the Federal Government any right to interfere with the question of slavery within the States or in this District. The States of Virginia and Maryland ceded to the Federal Government this ten miles square, called the District of Columbia, for a seat of Government, and granted to Congress exclusive legislative powers over it for that purpose. This power was given to Congress by the States for special purposes, and is limited, from the very nature of the grant. Congress cannot abolish the right of trial by jury, abridge the liberty of the press, nor establish a national church, in this District, any more than in any of the States; nor do I believe that Congress has a right to interfere with slavery in the District, while Virginia and Maryland continue to be slave States. Were it possible that the petitioners could effect their object, and abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, they would erect a receptable in the midst of two slaveholding States for fanatics, abolitionists, and runaway slaves, who would, from their stronghold here, spread dissatisfaction, death, and destruction, through the surrounding country. Could the States who ceded the District have anticipated such a result, they never would have ceded it to the United States. Mr. T. said he was happy in being able to state to the Senate that there were but thirty-three names signed to these petitions, and that he hoped and believed that there was but a small portion of his constituents in favor of the course that the petitioners recommended; that he thought it was best to meet this question fairly; and, taking the suggestion of an honorable Senator from Virginia, not now here, (Mr. Tyler,) he would move to refer these petitions to the Committee for the District of Columbia. Let that committee give us a report that will present a full and fair view of the subject. This, he thought, would quiet the public mind. This course was adopted some years ago, when Congress was overrun with petitions for stopping the mail on Sunday. The memorials were referred to the appropriate committee, and one able report from the chair [SENATE. man of the committee had put that exciting subject to rest, as he hoped, forever. Mr. CALHOUN expressed the hope that a question would be made on the reception of the petitions. He insisted that, if an objection should be made to the reception of a petition, it was the rule, and for forty years had been the practice of the Senate, to take the vote of reception, without a motion not to receive. He read the rule on this point, which stated that if there was a cry of the House to receive, and no objection should be made, or if the House were silent, the reception would take place of course. Otherwise, a vote must be taken on its reception. Mr. C. said he had in vain insisted on this at the last session. He hoped the Chair would now sustain the rule, before Mr. C. would be compelled to move a non-reception. [An extended discussion now took place, in which Messrs. Calhoun, Ewing, Tipton, Morris, Swift, Grundy, White, Buchanan, Hubbard, Bayard, Davis, King of Georgia, Southard, Preston, Webster, Cuthbert, Rives, and Wall, took part, when-] On motion of Mr. HUBBARD, the motion to receive the memorial was laid upon the table. YEAS.-Messrs. Bayard, Benton, Black, Brown, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clayton, Cuthbert, Dana, Fulton, Grundy, Hubbard, Kent, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Linn, Lyon, Moore, Nicholas, Norvell, Page, Preston, Rives, Robinson, Ruggles, Sevier, Spence, Strange, Walker, White, Wright-31. NAYS.-Messrs. Clay, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Hendricks, Knight, Morris, Niles, Prentiss, Robbins, Southard, Swift, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster -15. The Senate then adjourned. TUESDAY, February 7. Mexico Reprisals for Non-Satisfaction of The following Message was received from the To the Senate of the United States: At the beginning of this session, Congress was informed that our claims upon Mexico, had not been adjusted, but that, notwithstanding the irritating effect upon her councils of the movements in Texas, I hoped, by great forbearance, to avoid the necessity of again bringing the subject of them to your notice. That hope has been disappointed. Having in vain urged upon that Government the justice of those claims, and my indispensable obligation to insist that there should be "no further delay in the acknowledgment, if not in the redress of the injuries complained of," my duty requires that the whole subject should be presented, as it now is, for the action of Congress, whose exclusive right it is to decide on the further measures of redress to be employed. The length of time since some of the injuries have been committed, the repeated and unavailing applications for redress, the wanton character of some of the outrages upon SENATE.] Distribution of Books. [FEBRUARY, 1837. the property and persons of our citizens, upon the American vessels. One of these vessels had officers and flag of the United States, independent of sailed from Wilmington, in the State of North recent insults to this Government and people by the Carolina, for New Orleans, having on board late extraordinary Mexican minister, would justify, some slaves, the property of a gentleman rein the eyes of all nations, immediate war. That remedy, however, should not be used by just and moving from that State to the State of Missisgenerous nations, confiding in their strength, for in-sippi; and she was wrecked near New Providence, where the slaves were forcibly seized juries committed, if it can be honorably avoided; and detained. The Legislature of North Caroand it has occurred to me that, considering the pres- lina had, in consequence, expressed their disent embarrassed condition of that country, we should act with both wisdom and moderation, by giving to approbation of such unwarrantable conduct, Mexico one more opportunity to atone for the past, and unanimously passed resolutions calling upon before we take redress into our own hands. To the General Government to institute an inquiry avoid all misconception on the part of Mexico, as into the matter. The other case was that of a well as to protect our own national character from vessel bound from Alexandria, in the District reproach, this opportunity should be given, with the of Columbia, to Charleston, South Carolina. avowed design and full preparation to take immedi- Having met with very stormy weather, she was ate satisfaction if it should not be obtained on a re- forced into.the port of Bermuda, where the petition of the demand for it. To this end, I recom- British authorities took possession of the slaves, mend that an act be passed authorizing reprisals, and and set them at liberty. He insisted that there the use of the naval force of the United States, by was not a clearer constitutional question than the Executive, against Mexico, to enforce them, in that a vessel sailing from one part of the the event of a refusal, by the Mexican Government, United States to another was as free from to come to an amicable adjustment of the matters in search as the territory of the United States controversy between us, upon another demand thereof made from on broad one of our vessels of war on itself; and when a vessel was forced by stress the coast of Mexico. of weather into a foreign port, she was entitled to commiseration on account of her situation. The claims of humanity, he held, were, in such cases, to be superadded to the laws of nations. These points being so clear, he was astonished that outrages of this kind had been committed for the last three years. He did not doubt, for a moment, but that the Executive had done his duty, and exercised his accustomed vigilance, in reference to these matters. But still he (Mr. C.) was at a loss to perceive how it happened, after such a lapse of time, that the slaves had not been restored, nor any compensation made to the owners. Now, this resolution he had introduced for the purpose of getting information on the subject, and in order that justice might be done to our citizens. The documents herewith transmitted, with those accompanying my message in answer to a call of the House of Representatives of the 17th ultimo, will enable Congress to judge of the propriety of the course heretofore pursued, and to decide upon the necessity of that now recommended. If these views should fail to meet the concurrence of Congress, and that body be able to find in the condition of affairs between the two countries, as disclosed by the accompanying documents, with those referred to, any well-grounded reasons to hope that an adjustment of the controversy between them can be effected without a resort to the measures I have felt it my duty to recommend, they may be assured of my co-operation in any other course that shall be deemed honorable and proper. ANDREW JACKSON. WASHINGTON, February 6, 1837. The Message was ordered to be printed with the accompanying documents, and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. Liberation of American Slaves by British Authorities while passing from one United States Port to another. A resolution offered by Mr. CALHOUN, calling on the President for information in regard to the aggression committed by the authorities of Bermuda on a Southern vessel, freighted with slaves, which was driven by distress into the ports of Bermuda, coming up for consideration At the suggestion of Mr. GRUNDY, Mr. CALHOUN modified his resolution, so as to insert in it the words "provided the President does not deem it incompatible with the public interests; and the resolution, thus amended, was adopted. Distribution of Books. The resolution authorizing the distribution, among the new Senators, of nineteen copies of the American State Papers, published by Messrs. Gales & Seaton, coming up for consideration Mr. KING, of Georgia, moved to refer it to the Committee on the Library. Mr. PRESTON objected to the motion. It was Mr. CALHOUN observed that the cases referred a question, he said, of mere distribution; and, to in the resolution presented one of the great- if an inquiry beyond that were instituted, it est outrages ever committed on the rights of did not properly belong to the Library Comindividuals by a civilized power. The resolu-mittee. tion proposed to ask from the President copies of any correspondence that may have taken place with the British Government relative to the seizure, by the British authorities, of the slaves who were carried as passengers in two Mr. GRUNDY was opposed to any reference. A committee could do nothing to assist the Senate on the subject. Mr. LINN suggested the propriety of throwing all such documents into the library. He |