Newspaper Page Text
JUDGE ANDREW’S DECISION
U tiie case of the State vs. David Pat
tom,
In Oglethorpe Superior Court, April Term,
1841.
On the part of the State, throe witnesses
wore introduced, to whose competency the
prisoner’s couusol objected, because they
did not believo ill a slate off uture reward
and punishment. Witnesses were then cal
led, who clearly proved that this was the
belief of ttvo of the witnesses objected to—
the third admitting it to be Ids faith, in open
court, without question. It was then pro
posed to prove that the Universa/ist doctrine,
which, it was said, these people professed,
taught future punishments, though not eter- i
nal. ‘ilie Court held that it did not exclude
the witnesses on the ground of their being
Universalists, but on the. principle of the
common law, that makes the belief in a fu
ture state of rewards and punishments the
test as to the competency of a witness ob
jected toon the ground of religious belief, j
and that it was unnecessary to enquire into
the religious tenets of any sect—an enquiry
generally of great difficulty. What the
witnesses believed, had been proven by
proper and legal evidence. The Univcrsal
ists, author quoted, might have one faith;
and the witnesses tendered, another. One
ofthc rejected witnesses then moved to prove
tiiat he believed in a future state of rewards
and punishments, though not in eternal pun
ishments. The Court held that he should!
ho permitted to do so; but on calling wit
nesses. he was unable to restore his compe
tency in that way. That these, witnesses
were incompetent to testify by the common
law, was not controverted. The State’s
counsel relied Jon the 10th sec. of the 4th
article of the Constitution of Georgia, which
i ; in the following words
• No person, within this State, shall up
on any pretence be deprived of tlie inesti
mable privilege of worshipping God in a
manner agreeable to his own conscience ;
nor be compelled to attend any place of
worship, contrary to his own faith and
judgement; nor shall he over be obliged to
pay tithes, taxes, or any other rate, for the
building or repairing any place of worship,
or for the maintenance of any minister or
ministry, contrary to what lie believes to be j
right, or hath voluntarily engaged to do.—
No one religious society shall be establish
ed in this State in preference to another, nor
shall any person bo denied the enjoyment
of any civil right merely on account of his
religious principles.” Prince’s Digest p.
912. •
They contended, on the part of the State, |
that if oaths could not be administered to
some persons, on account of their religious j
opinions, they might be prevented from hoi- j
ding office, could not claim property, or j
do any other act requiring an oath.
The defendant’s counsel relied on the j
common law principle, laid down in the j
books of evidence, (though none were read ;
or cited,) which renders incompetent ali j
portions to testify', who do not believo in a j
future state of rewards and punishments.—
They also relied on the case of Atwood vs. j
Weldon, 7 Conn. Rep. n. G 6, and which is I
reported in the following words in Wheelers j
American Common Law Reports, vol. Bth, j
page 484.
“ On the trial of the cause, one Scott was j
offered as a witness, by the plaintiff, but was j
objected to by the defendant on the ground
ihat lie did not believe in the existence of a j
Supreme Being, nor in future rewards and i
punishments,nor in a future state ; and to j
these points several witnesses were exami- ;
ued, by whom it was proven that ‘Said j
Scott professed to believe in the doctrine of j
the Universalists, and in the existence of a j
Supreme Being ; that men were punished]
in this life for their sins, but would all be ;
made happy, immediately after death by j
their Creator.’ The judge admitted the |
witness, and he testified in the cause.”
Verdict for the plaintiff, and motion for a j
new trial.
Dagget, J. in giving his opinion, says :
•• In the view which 1 take of tiie condi
tion of this witness, he should not have been
admitted. The question is not, whether a
person who denies all punishment after this
life, and who, in the language of the motion
believes that men will be punished in this
life for their sins, but immediately after
their death, be made happy, be a competent
witness. The doctrine as now established
in this country and in England, is, that if a
person believes in a God, the avenger of
falsehood, in a future state of rewards and
punishments, he may be a witness, and not
otherwise. If, on enquiry of witnesses, it
is satisfactorily proved that the person does
not believo in a future state of rewards and
j'UiiiolinioiUi, tli ere is net that tie upon his
conscience, and of course, that sanction
which the law requires ; and, therefore, lie
ought not to be sworn. This is the rule of
the common law ; and there is no adjudged
case and hardly a dictum, in the English
books against it. In Jackson e.c deni., Tut
tle vs. Gridley, 18 John’s Rep. 98 ; Curtis
vs. Strong, 4 Day, 51 ; Swift’s Ev. 48 ; 1
Swift’s Diir- 739, this doctrine is laid down,
and the reasoning very satisfactory. A
new trial must be granted.
Hoskek, C. J. arid Lanman .1. were of
tlie same opinion.
Peters, dissented.”
Defendant’s counsel relied on, and read
the opinion ofSpencer J. given in the case
of Tuttle vs. Gridley, 18tli John’s. Rep. 103,
and particularly the following portions
thereof:
By the law of England, which has been
adopted in this State, it is fully and clearly
settled, that infidels who do not believe in a
God, or, if they do, do not think that he mill
either reward or punish them in the world to
come, cannot be witnesses in any case, nor
under any circumstances ; because an oath
cannot possibly be any tic or obligation upon
them. ******* ***
Religion is a tiling of which every man
has a right to think according to the die- !
tales of iiis understanding. It is a solemn
concert between his conscience and his
God, with which no human tribunal lias a
right to meddle. But in the development
•*:’ facto ‘he ascertainment oftruth. In
rnan tribunal has a right to interfere. They
arc bound to see that no mans rights are im
paired or taken away, but through the me
dium of testimony entitled to belief; and no
testimony is entitled to credit, unless deliv
ered under the solemnity of an oath, which
conics homo to the conscience ofthc witness
and will create a tie arising from his belief
that false swearing would expose him to
punishment in the life to come. On this
great principle rest all our institutions, and
especially the distribution of justice between
man and man.”
And for the purpose of showing that the
Legislature of Georgia, so far from repeal
ing the common law, have recognised the
principle whenever it had become necessa
ry to legislate on the subject, the prisoner’s
counsel read the act of 1756, authorising an
affirmation to be administered where a wit
ness might have any conscientious scruples
as to swearing.
The form of the affirmation, as prescri
bed by the act, is in the following words :
I ■■ I, A. B. do swear in the presence of Al
mighty God, as I shrill answer at the great
and awful day of judgement, that, (as the
case inav be.”) See Prince’s Digest page
39.
They argued that the Legislature held it
essential, that the affirmant should recog
nize the doctrine that lie would be account
able at “ the great and awful day of judge
ment,” if be should affirm falsely ; and
that answering at the “ day of judgement,”
pre-stipposes a stale of future rewards and
punishments, for that we could hardly sup
posed “great and awful day of judgement’’
if all arc to be eternally happy.
For the same purpose, the statute was
read, directing, who shall be witnesses on
the trial of slaves or free neitsons ot color,
which declares that “any witness shall be
sworn, who believes in God and a future
state of rewards and punishments, ” &c.—
See Prince’s Digest, 792. It was insisted,
therefore, that ihe legislature, so far as they
had intermeddled with the common law
doctrine on the subject, seem fully to recog
nise its provision, that a belief in a future
state of rewards and punishments was ne
cessary to the competency of a witness;
for, that they would hardly require a wit
ness to believe in a future state of rewards
and punishments, to render him competent
to swear against a slave, and not against a
white man ; that the legislature, when tiiis
act was passed,seemed fully to understand
tiiat by the common law, a witness should
at all events believe in a state of future re
wards and punishments before lie could be
sworn, fl'l other objections, except the
want of this belief, were, by tiie aG,
ed. By it, a negro having this belief,
would be competent, and a white man. J
wanting it, incompetent.
In the course of the argument, that per- j
tiou of Washington’s farewell address was j
read, which, when inculcating a regard to j
religion and morality, asks “ where is the
security for property, for reputation, for I
life, if the sense of religious obligation de
sort the oaths which are the instruments of
investigation in courts of justice?”
The Court, in its decision, held that the j
common law seemed not, and it believed ]
could not, be controverted ; that it permit- j
ted the oath of any religious belief, wheth
er Jew, Mahomedan, or tiiose professing the
Gentoo religion, provided he should believe
in a state of future rewards and punish
ment:! ; but that such belief, by the common j
law, seemed indispensable to the eompe- j
teticy of the witness ; that it had been plain- ;
iy proven—not by interrogating tlie wit
nesses themselves, as to their religious be
: 1 ie! : —but by other competent testimony, that
! they did not believe in a state of future re-
I wards and punishments. And though the ;
j court iiad decided that they would be com
-1 potent, if they could show that they believ
] ed in future rewards and punishments,
j though not eternal, yet they had failed to
j make it appear, that such was their belief.
The Court was clearly of opinion, that
the exclusion of the witnesses did not vio
late the section of the Constitution relied on
by” the State’s counsel, inasmuch, as the re
jection would not deprive them of “ the pri
lege of worshiping God in a manner agree
ble to their own consciences ;” nor would
their exclusion from testifying “compel
them to attend any place of worship con
trary to their own faith and judgment;”
neither would “ it establish one religious
society in this State in preference to anoth
er ;” nor would tiiey thereby “ be denied
the enjoyment of any civil right.” When
a question should arise, in which the wit
nesses’ civil rights should be involved, and
his oatli should be necessary to assert ie-in, j
it would then be in time to consider such a
case. Such was not then the question be
fore the court. The witnesses were not
proposing to take an oath to interpose a
claim, to qualify themselves to hold an of
fice, or to assert any other of their civil
rights. They had been subpoenaed to tes
tily between two indifferent parties. Though
it be a duty for them to attend in obedience
to tiie process of the court, the have no right
to swear in the case. If they have, then
could they swear voluntarily, and if ob-
structed in such right, would have a reme
dy ; for the law has provided a remedy for
the denial of every right. Though consid
ered a burthen, and often a heavy one, this
is the first time that it has been claimed as
a right, for a witness to swear in a cause in
which he has no interest. Suppose the
State had chosen to proceed without calling
these witnesses: could they have come in
to court, and claimed it as a right to he
sworn; and if denied, to what remedy
would they have appealed ? The answer
is obvious, that they had no right to swear;
but if sworn, would have been in the per
formance of a duty in obedience to the pro
cess of the court. Indeed, the witnesses do
not claim to he sworn, hut are offered by
another, as the right of another —the State,
and not of the witness.
If a duty which a man may be compell
: ed to perform, regardless of Ins wishes,
and which lie cannot perform unless per
! milted, be his right, then is the English ian
-1 guage incapable of representing distinct i
: deas. ‘.- to it;- diffieultv alluded to In
] the State’s counsel, tiiat might arise from
want of proof in some cases, if sucli wit
nesses should be rejected, it was held to be
a matter for the consideration of the Legis
lature entirely. In the language of Justice
Spencer, they had the l ight and power to
prescribe who should be competent witness
es. It was the business and duty of tiie
Court, that could not he avoided nor evad
ed, to administer the law whether good or
bad—and not to make or alter it. Such
the Court believed to bo tho common law,
adopted hy a statute of this State, (see Prin
ce’s Digest, 570,) and standing as it believ
ed, unaltered, must be enforced.
No argument having been had as to how
the common law stood, no authorities were
read except the State reports above alluded
to. It will therefore be proper to give a
few ext racts from the books of evidence, to
show those to whom they are not accessi
ble, how far the Court’s recollection was
sustained by its provisions.
Speaking of the incompeteney of wit
nesses on account of their religious belief, |
Phillips says, (vol. 1. old ed. page 10.)
“our law therefore, like that of most other |
civilized countries, requires a witness to bo- [
Sieve that there is a God, and a future stale j
of rewards and punishments, and that by ta
king the oath, he imprecates divine ven
geance upon himself if his evidence shall
bo false.”
Speaking on the same subject, Starkie
says, (Ist vol. Starkic’s Ev. page 80,) —
“ thence it follows, that all persons may be
sworn as witnesses who believe in tlie exis
tence of God, in a future slate of rewards
and punishments, and in the obligation of an
oath, that is, who believe tiiat divine pun
ishment Will Lc ike consequence of perju
ry ; and therefore Jews, Mahometans, Gen
toos, or in short persons of any sect posses
sed of such belief, are so far competent wit
nesses.” Mr. Christian, in a note to 3d
Black, (page 339,) says, that in Peak’s It.
11. “ Buller Jus. held, tiiat the proper
question to be asked of a witnesses, wheth
er be believes in God, the obligation of an
oath, and in a future state of rewards and
punishments.'’ In Swift’s evidence, 47, it
is said, “the sanction of an oath depends
upon higher considerations than the tempo
| ru! pains and penalties of perjury ; for in
many instances, from the nature of the
transaction, the witness must be beyond
their reach'. There is not only a moral
obligation to speak the truth, enforced by a
remorse of conscience for a violation of it;
but there is a religious sanction arising from
a belief in the existence of a God, and a fu
ture slate of rewards and punishments .”
It was reported on one hand, during the j
trial, that :c ‘he Ocmulgee Circuit, the pre- j
siding Judge would not permit tiie religious j
b'. lief ol a witness to do questioned in any j
way ; on the other, it was said, the Court j
only objected to the witness being question- j
ed as to his neighbors opinions, but never
refused to permit them to be proven bv oth
er witnesses, as was done in the case under
consideration. It was also reported dur
ing the argument, that in the Western Cir
cuit, a witness, objected to because ho did
not believe in a state of future rewards and
punishments, was held to be incompetent,
I and was not sworn.*
From these views, the Court felt itself
compelled to say that the objection to the
competency of the witnesses was well tak
en, and they were accordingly excluded.
GARNETT ANDREWS,
J. S. C. N. C., Ga.
*1 have since seen a report of the case, approv
ed by the presiding judge. It occurred in Frank
lin co., in tiie case of (Strange against the Ex’rs.
of Strange, in whicli a witness by the name of
Pattison, was excluded, because lie professed
: not to believe in “a future state of rewards and
punishments.”
JURIES.
[ln this country, thanks to the free cha
racter of our tiobie institutions, it is not of
ten necessary to vindicate the independence
of jurors. But even here, juugcs have
sometimes forgotten tiie dignity and courte
sy due to this humble, but favorite tribunal.
Such an one was eloquently reproved in
the following address, reported verbatim by
the late Rev. Edmund Butcher. The whole
circumstance proves that true eloquence is
the child of nature.
A judge on the Northwest Circuit in
Ireland, tried an action for assault, brought
by a neighboring land owner against a poor
tenant, who had resorted to this method of
redressing wrongs of tiie most grievous
character. The jury found him not guil
ty :]
j “ The judge was enraged, and told the
jury they must go back and reconsider the
matter : adding, lie was astonished at their
giving such an infamous verdict. The ju
ry bowed, went back, in a quarter of an
hour returned, when the foreman, a vener
able old man, thus addressed the bench :
‘ My lord, in compliance with your desire,
we went hack to our room ; but as we there
found no reason to alter our opinions or our
verdict, we return to you, in the same
words as before — not guilty. We heard
your lordship’s reproof; but we do not ac
cept it as properly applying to us. Indi
vidually and in our private capacities, it is
true, we are insignificant men ; we claim
nothing out of this box, above the common
regard due to our humble, yet honest sta
tions, hut, my lord, assembled here as a ju
ry, we cannot be insensible of the great im
portance of the office we now sustain. We
feel glad that we are appointed, as you are,
by the law and the constitution, not only to
act impartially between the king and his
subjects, the offended and the offender, hut
to form the barrier of the people, against
the possible influence, prejudice, or cor
ruption of the bench ; to which we do not
wish to offer the smallest degree of disres
pect, much less of insult; we pay it the
respect which one tribunal should pay to
another, for the common honor of both.
This jury did not accuse the bench of
partiality or oppression—no, we looked up
on it as the sanctuary of truth and justice ;
still rny lord, we cannot erase from our
minds the records of our school books.—
By them we were taught that kings and
[judges are hut fallible mortals; and that
: the seat of justice has been polluted by u
Tressiiian, a Scoggs, and a Jeffreys.’ The
j judge frowned at these words, but the in
trepid juror thus proceeded: ‘ My lord, I
am but a poor man, yet I urn a freeborn
subject and a member of the constitution ;
nay, 1 am now higher, for I am one of its
representatives; I therefore claim lor my
self and fellow jurors, liberty of speech.’
“ The judge hero resumed his compla
cency and the orator continued his address;
‘ We have nothing to do, my lord, with your ]
private character in this place, it is veiled i
by your official one: wo know you here I
only in tiiat of a judge, and, as such, we j
would respect you—you know nothing of
us, but as a jury ; and in that situation, wo |
look to you for reciprocal respect, because I
wo know of no man, however high his ti- I
ties or his rank, in whom tho law or tiie
constitution would warrant an unprovoked
insult towards that tribunal, in which they
have vested the dearest privileges they pos
sess. We sit here, my lord, sworn to give
a verdict according to our consciences, and
| the best of our judgments, on the evidence
before us. We have, in our minds, dis
charged our duty as honest men. If we
have erred, we arc accountable, not to your
lordship, nor to tiie king who appointed you,
but to a higher power, the King of kings !”
“ The bench was dumb, tiie bar silent;
astonishment and applause murmured
through the crowd, and the poor man was
discharged.”
CO.NCiIvESSIONA L.
Cor. of the Charleston Courier.
Washington, July 24.
The intense and distressing heat of the
weather appears to have some effect in ex
pediting business at the Capitol.
The bankrupt bill after six hours debate
was yesterday ordered to a third reading.
Tiie despatch is very creditable to the Sen
ate. A bill which had been discussed, in
that body, for two or three sessions, and the
principles of which were so well under
stood, did not, it was urged, require further
debate, at ibis time. Mr. Nicholson moved
to amend the bill by applying its provisions
to banking corporations, and it was ably
discussed and rejected, veus 16, nays 34.
Mr. Benton remarked tiiat this was agrow
ing question, and public opinion would
soon require some uniform and efficient
mode for winding up suspended and insol
vent banks. The mode indicated in tiie
amendment would better regulate the cur
rency tlmn any National Batik that could
] he framed.
The bill lvas ordered to be engrossed,
to-day ; and it will also pass the House, in
due time.
Mr. Clay will call up the bank bill to
day, and it is hoped that the. opposition will
suffer the final question to be taken upon it,
without delay.
The House was occupied the whole day,
in discussing the resolution for the appoint
ment of a committee to collect information
as to the operation of the tariff’ laws. The
j House was evidently nearly equally bal
laneed on the question. The main ques
tion was, after a strong speech from Mr.
Rliett in opposition to the resolution, and of
Mr. Kennedy of Me. in its support, ordered
to bo put, by a vote of 101 to 100.
The resolution passed, yeas 103, nays
104. But Mr. M’KeonofN. Y. immedi
ately moved a reconsideration, with a view
to offer an amendment, framing the inquiry
on the principles of Mr. Hume’s parliamen
tary investigation. Mr. M’Keon opposed
any alteration of the tariffand advocated a
resort to direct taxation, for the whole re
venue of the Government. Mr. Stokely,
ofOhio, replied and Mr. Proflit moved the
previous question on the motion to reconsi
der, when the House adjourned.
The revenue bill is to come up next in
the House and, an effort will be made to
postpone it.
The vindication of Mr. Ewing’s plan for
a bank—i. e. Mr. Tyler’s plan—which ap
peared in the New York Commercial, and
is attributed by some to Mr. Webster, has
produced some effect here. But is has not
changed the views or purposes of Mr. Clay
and his friends, who look upon Tyler’s plan
as impracticable, to say nothing of its aban
doning the constitutional powers and ilu
ties of the Government.
It is certain, therefore that Mr. Clay’s
bill will be rejected by the Senate, unless
the Loco Foco Sena tors choose to let it pass,
j [Our information from othei sources ia di
rectly the reverse of our correspondent’s on
this subject.]
Washington, July 25.
The Banktrupt Bill yesterday passed—
yeas 26 nays 23, a follows :
Yeas. —Merssrs. Barrow, Bates, Berrien
Choate, Clay,of Kentucky, Clayton, Dixon,
Evans, Henderson, Huntington, peer,
Merrick, Miller, Morehead, Moulon, Phelps
Porter, Sitnmons,Smith oflndianna, South
ard, Tallmadge, Walker, White, Williams
Woodbridge, and Young 26.
Nays. —Merssrs. Allen, Archer, Bayard
Benton, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay of Ala
bama, Cutlibert, Fulton, Graham, King,
Linn, M’Roberts, Nicholson, Pierce, Pren
tiss, Ilivcs, Sevier, Smith, of Connecticut,
Sturgeon, Tappan, Woodbury, and Wright
—23.
There was some discussion upon it, prior
to the final vote. Mr. Tallmadge urged its
passage, with great force and eloquence,
lie estimated the number of bankrupts in
the country at 500,000, and as there were
at least three persons dependant on each of
these, the number of those, soliciting relief
at our hands, was two millions. Buchan
an considered this estimate as greatly ex
aggerated, for the whole number of votes
in tlie United States was but three millions
and it could not he supposed that one man
in six was insolvent. He viewed the bill
as applying a spunge to all present debts
| in the country, and holding out encourage
ment to another career of extravagance,
| speculation, and debt, which would result,
lin another genera! business convulsion.—
The courts of law would bo encuj/Tiend
with proceedings, growing out of this sys
tem, and their regular business interrupted.
Mr. Walker supported the bill very .car
in stly.
Tiie Bank Bill was then called up, by
Mr. Clay, and the amendments made in
Committee of the Whole, were severally
considered. Some of them were concurred
in, and others stricken out, or modified.—
Mr. Clay moved to strike out tiie clause,
which prohibits the trauster of stock to any
] foreigner, and the motion, after debate, was
j agreed to. No other important alteration
: was made.
Mr. Wright moved an adjournment, in
I order to offer some motion in regard to the
I hill, and the Senate adjourned. It is ru- |
! mored that the question on the passage of
I tiie bill will he taken on Monday.
The House reconsidered the resolution
for collecting information concerning the
operation of our revenue laws, and laid it
on the tabic, i. c. rejected it. Some of its j
friends voted against it, from an apprehen- J
sion that it would prevent the passage of
tiie Duty Bill, at this session.
The duty was taken up, and Fillmore
made an expose of the condition ofthc treas
ury", showing that the additional revenue to
he raised by it, was necessary, and that it
did not interfere with the compromise.
Tiie subject will be resumed on Monday.
It is possible tiiat the bill may be postponed
but the chances are in favor of its passage,
at this session.
Washington, July 20.
The present week will be one ofgreat of
interest here, and must bo decisive of the
fate of some of the most important measures
before Congress.
The bankrupt bill—thanks to the prompt
action ofthc Senate upon it—has as fair a
chance to bccQine a law as any bill before
Congress. There is scarcely a doubt that
it will pass the House, and the bill is of
such a character that it will insure the
President’s approval.
The distribution bill is in more danger.
It rests entirely upon the Senate whether it
shall become a law or not, and there, it is
asserted, there are twenty-six votes cer
tainly in opposition to it, viz: 22 locos, the
two Virginian Senators, and Messrs. Pres
ton and Porter—but as to this there may
be some doubt.
The bank bill is still involved in doubt.
Strong confidence is expressed in the suc
cess ol some measures ; this confidence is
equally felt by’ the advocates of Mr. Clay’s
bill and ol ibe Treasury project. Unless
some third plan can be formed on principles
ofmutual concession, there can be no bank.
Public meeting have been called in New
York and elsewhere to support Mr. Clay’s
views on this subject, and there is no rea
son to believo that Mr. Clay or bis friends
in either House, will “yield principle to ex
pediency.”
The revenue bill now before the House
will meet with great opposition, and its suc
cess is doubtful. The necessity of raising
additional revenue is apparent, and it is
conceded that it must be raised by an in
crease of duties on imports. But tiie diffi
culty is to arrange tiie details of a bill.—
The first question is how far the necessaries
oflife shall be taxed. The bill imposes a
duty of twenty percent ad valorem on tea,
coffee, sugar, salt, iron. &c. Mr. Law
rence, of Pa., has moved an amendment ex
empting tea and sugar from tiie operation
ofthe bill. Mr. Pickens lias indicated an
amendment exempting salt and iron. The
manufacture of woolen goods, carpets, &e.
which has now become a prominent and
important interests, will be destroyed by
tiie bill ; for, while from the operation ofthe
compromise act the duty on tiie foreign fab
ric is reduced to twenty percent, al! their
raw materials, which have been imported
free of duty, are taxed by this bill with a
duty of twenty percent ad valorem.
A duty of twenty per cent, ad valorem
on foreign coal is unjust and oppressive.—
There will he a thousand other objections
to the details of the measure ; and it may
well be doubted whether a satisfactory bill
can be framed, at this hurried session.
Washington, July 27.
It is confidently asserted tiiat the bank
question lias been so compromised as to re
move all difficulty in regard to its passage
and that Mr. Clay’s bill is to be so modified
as to secure the support of all the whigs in
Congress, and the appro* al of the I’rcsid nt.
We shall know more of the matter : n a j
day or two.
Tho fiscal bank bill occupied the Senate
yesterday, and the amendments made in
Committee were either concurred in, modi
fied, or rejected. The opposition com
plained that many of the most important
restrictions were stricken out. The clause,
prohibiting directors from receiving loans
from the bank was rejected, on motion of
Mr. Clay, who said that this restriction was
passed upon the assumption that this bank
like others, could allow permanent loans,
whereas its discounts were restricted to bu
siness paper.
The opposition offered some amendments
which were rejected, and they announced
that there was nothing left for them to do
hut to raise the standard of repeal. Mr.
Benton said that the democracy must de
stroy the bank or be destroyed by it..
The opposition then called for the ques
tion on the engrossment of the bill. Mr.
Morehead, of Ky., signified his wish to
speak on the bill, to day. But the ques
tion on engrossment was pressed by Mr.
Calhoun, Mr. King & others. Mr. Clay
was gratified, he said at this disposition of
the minority to take the question, and he
hoped nothing would occur to change it.—
But the hill was a long one, and he wished
to examine it to night, and see whether any
further amendment would be necessary.—
He did not know that any amendment would
he offered ; but he would propose to take
the question on any amendment and on the
engrossment, without debate, at 12 o’clock
to-day [Tuesday] Mr. Calhoun said the
i Senate was now full, and tlieduestion could
! he now taken, and necessary amendments
made afterwards by common consent. —
Tiie Senate however, adjourned—27 to 31.
The reason for deferring the question till
to-day is supposed to be, an intention to of
fer the compromise amendment to-day,
should it be found expedient. If not the
bill will bo laid aside or rejected, and the
compromise will conic from the House.
The House was occupied with the reve
nue bill, and Messrs. Atherton, Rhett,
Campbell of'S. C. and Ward,spoke in op
position to it. Mr. J. Q. Adams earnestly
supported the bill, and opposed the com
promise act, which he said was a comprom
ise between Mr. Ciav and Mr. Calhoun, to
the injury” ot the interests of the Northern
States, and of the whole country. When
i the compromise act was made, there was
not revenue enough from imports to defray
the ordinary expenses of the Government,
and there had not been since. The reven
ui had been insufficient and we must resort
to another twelve million loan to pay our
debts. The current expenses, he held,
j should be defrayed by duties on imports;
and excise, direct lax, loans, &c., should
be resorted to in time of war. He warmly
supported the distribution scheme, as a mea
sure of justice to those States which had be
come- involved in debt by efforts to improve
the country and develope its resources.
The bill will be taken out of committee
and disposed of this week.
Congress will not sit longer than the 10th
of August, according to present appearance.
Washington, July 30-
It is now the prevailing opinion that we
shall have a bank. But it must be a bank,
! after all, in conformity with the views ofthe
| Executive, in regard to the branching pow
j or. It became evident some time ago,
that Mr. Clay's bill, as reported, would
’ certainly be defeated in the Senate, lie
saved the bill in that body, however, by the
adoption of a compromise. He had ascer
tain: and that there were ten whig Senators
opposed to the unqualified assertion of tiie
power to establish branches without the as
sent ofthc States. Eight of those recon
ciled by the compromise ; but two other
whig Senators opposed the compromise as
yielding too much. The compromise,
therefore barely enabled the friends of the
bill to get it through tho Senate. The
President was not consulted in relation to
it, and we now have it from the most relia
ble sources, that lie objects to the bill, as a
mended, as strongly” as to the original bill,
in this state of things, the bill from the Sen
ate will be reported in the House ; and tiie
House, it is said, is ready to adopt any 7 bill
that will be sure of success. They are
quite ready, when necessary, to go back to
Mr. Ewing’s project. The present opinion
in regard to tho matter, therefore, is that
we shall have a bank, and a bank requir
ing assent of the states to the establishment
ofbranchts, as a condition precedent.—
That the Senate will ultimately agree to
this plan, when the alternative shall be be
tween it and no bank, there can be no doubt.
Nor would Mr. Clay’s interest sustain any
detriment by this course because he and his
friends have already done every thing in
their power to secure to the country what
they deem a constitutional and practicable
bank.
The House is to take the revenue bill
out of committee at 12 o’clock today", and
their vote without debate, on the amend
ments and on the bill. The defeat of the
[ amendments and of the bill is very proba
ble, but the vote will be close.
Great opposition to the bill lias sprung up
the ranksoftlie northern and eastern wliigs.
Many of the Southern wliigs also oppose it
and the locos go in a compact body against
it. Mr. Saltonstall remarked in his speech
against the measure, that of all other meas
ures which had been presented to the House
this required the most deliberate and care
ful examination and discussion. He de-
dared, unequivocally, that the members ol
the House were uninformed on the subject,
and, if they voted upon it, at the time fixed,
tlicy would vote in utter ignorance of the.
question. Mr. Ingersoll, in his speech a-
I gainst the bill, said it was full of absurdi
ties and inconsistencies ; and if is passed,
I would be unnecessary for the opposition to
raise the cry of repeal against it. Were
he a malignant opponent of the present ad
ministration-hut he was not-he would wish
them to pass this measure—for it would
give universal dissatisfaction and recoil
upon them with tremendous force.
Mr. Pickens also made an earnest appeal
against tire bill, and the precipitate action
of the House upon it. Mr. Wise will speak
to-day in opposition to the measure.
I understand that the speech of Mr.
Holmes of'S. C., against this bill, in reply
to Mr. J. Q. Adams, will be soon published
—which, I am very glad to learn, inas
much as the speech was remarkably well
received by the House, and presents an able
view of this interesting subject. Several
very able speeches of the, same gentleman,
at the present sesion arc as yet unpublished
particularly his remarks on the subject cl
the 21st rule.
The public Lands. —The Madisonian fur
nishes the following information in respect
to the Public Lands, the proceeds of which
it is proposed to distribute :
The estimated quantity of public land
unsold and now subject to private entry is
i18,173,441 acres.
The estimated quantity, surveyed and
unsurveyed, not offered at public sale, 103,
410,863 acres.
The quantity which has been sold from
the earliest period of the sales is 88.705,-
724 acres.
The amount paid thereof by the purcha
sers lias been $121,113,435.
The quantity granted to each Stat~pnd
Territory, exclusive of the 16th section,
has been 3,826,836 acres.
The quantity reserved from sale, exclu
sive of the 16th section, has been 837,589,-
acres.
The estimated quantity of public land to
which the Indian title has not been extin
guished in the States and Territories, is
735,015.690.
