1 sideration. It was a subject that deeply involved the interest of a very large portion of his constituents. He stated that the Ohio river was the great western highway to market; it was upon that river that all the agricultural, mineral, and manufacturing productions of the trans-Allegany country were carried to market. He said the gentleman from New York [Mr. VANDERPOEL] is very much mistaken when he supposes that there is more produce passing through the New York canal than passes down the Ohio. Without, Mr. Chairman, attempting, in the smallest degree, to detract from the merits of that spendid canal, that reflects honor upon the legislative councils of that State, he (Mr. McC.) would in his place state that he believed there was at least ten times as much passing annually down the Ohio river. The gentleman seems to have forgot that nine States of this Union bordered on the Ohio river; that sit is the great channel of trade, and that it connects it self with the most extensive rivers on the globe; all of which intersect and diversify a region unsurpassed in fertility and beauty, and teeming with the immense productions of an industrious and increasing population. Mr. McC. said that the growing energies and increasLing wealth of that country could be best ascertained by a reference to the report of the canal company, dated the 6th of January, 1834. From that report the committee will see that, in 1831, there passed through the canal 406 steamboats, and 421 flat and keel boats, carrying 76,323 tons of freight; 1832, 453 steamboats, and 179 flat and keel boats, carrying 70,109 tons; and, in 1833, 875 steamboats, and 710 flat and keel boats, carrying 169,885 tons, showing an increase in a single year of 99,776 tons; and that, too, at a time when the canal had not obtained general use, and during a period of considerable commercial embarrassment. He Mr. McC. said the chairman would recollect that at least one half of the produce and merchandise that were annually borne on the bosom of that beautiful,stream did not pass through the canal, but the owners availed themselves of a suitable tide, and passed directly through the great falls. He said that the Ohio river ought to be regarded as a great national highway, free for all to use without being subject to so enormous a tax. said he would state for the information of the committee that, in one single county in his district, there was manufactured annually at least two million bushels of salt. A great portion of this salt had to pass through this canal, as almost the entire valley of the Mississippi is dependent on the Kanawha salines for their salt. Mr. McC. said if the chairman would take the pains of examining the report, he would find that one single steamboat, by the name of Uncle Sam, had to pay $187 56 for passing through this canal. He asked if it was fair to tax the industry of so large a portoin of a nation for the purpose of sustaining any private corporation whatever. [H. OF R. there are works of a national character. The great difficulty seems to be to find the proper point of distinction between national and local improvements. However, the President has put that question to rest; he has ascertained that below ports of entry is national, and above ports of entry is local. This being the doctrine of Mr. Jefferson, I hope that we shall even get the support of my honorable colleague, [Mr. MASON,] as Mr. Jefferson is often quoted as a textbook in this House. Mr. McC. said he should look for it if he brought the case within the rule, and this he could certainly do, for the city of Pittsburg was a port of entry, and the obstruction to be removed was between that port and the seaboard; therefore, if the distinction of the President can be relied on, it is a national work. The friends of this bill support it on the ground that it is a national work, and not a sectional or local improvement. From the sources of the Allegany to the Gulf of Mexico, every State, not one excepted, which is connected with the Ohio and Mississippi, are directly interested, and many of the Atlantic States and cities are indirectly interested, which they evince by the spirit of rivalry they manifest in the construction of canals and railroads to compete for that trade. The products of Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, Virginia, Maryland, and Kentucky, consisting of the products of the soil, fisheries, and manufactures, pass down this river, and encounter this canal at the great falls. They receive as a return load the agricultural and mineral productions of Tennessee, Missouri, Illinois, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana, and other Southern and Western States. has been well said in the report of the committee, it will be seen that this vast and increasing commerce is subject to very unjust taxation. As Mr. McC. said his colleague dwelt with great earnestness upon the fact, that it was establishing a new principle for Congress to purchase stock in a canal company after the work was finished. He said, for his part, he could not see that it involved any principle whatever. If the federal Government had the power to commence and erect a canal for national purposes, she certainly had the power to purchase a canal, when made, to effect the same object. If this was not true, it would appear that there was some magic in works made by the federal Government; that its merits consisted in the agents that completed the work, and not in the utility of the work itself when completed. He seems to be very much alarmed at another aspect of the subject. He says many other companies may claim to have works of a national character, and demand the right to surrender them up to this Government. He mentioned, Mr. Chairman, two incorporated companies of this character in our native State: those are the James River and Kanawha Company and the Dismal Swamp Canal Company. I think, sir, if the gentleman had reflected coolly on this subject, he would have seen no danger from that source. Sir, what claim has the Dismal Swamp canal to the character of a national work? It has not the smallest. Sir, it connects itself with the Roanoke, a stream that has no pretensions to nationality, less susceptible of navigation than many of the tributary streams of the Ohio. As an evidence of that fact, the produce on the river above Weldon, at the junction of the Petersburg railroad, leaves the river and takes the railroad, and finds its way to Norfolk by way of James river. If this work has any claims of a national character, why is it the peo Mr. McC. said his colleague [Mr. MASON] seemed very much alarmed. He thinks the proposition of the gentleman from Kentucky one of extraordinary character; the most so of any that has ever come before Congress. He says it will be the establishment of a new principle, unknown to the House. He seems to think that the constitution is in imminent peril. If the gentleman's views are correct, we should pause and reflect before we commit the rash act; nay, sir, we should promptly reject the bill. For, sir, I am one of those who think whenever that sacred instrument is departed from, either by the legislative, executive, or judicial depart-ple of Portsmouth and Norfolk are ready to abandon it, ments of this Government, that the liberties of the people are endangered. But let us examine into this matter; the case is not so hopeless as the gentleman may suppose. The gentleman belongs to the administration party, who claim the exclusive merit of reviving the doctrines of Mr. Jefferson. It is admitted by all that and make a railroad direct to Weldon, to compete with the Petersburg Railroad Company for the upper trade? Sir, the gentleman need give himself no uneasiness on that subject. He may also rest secure there will never be any application to transfer the James River and Kanawha Company to the federal Government. The James H. OF R.] Commissioner of Pensions--Fuel for the Poor. river does not penetrate more than half way through Virginia, let alone washing the shores of nine States in this Union. Mr. McC. said that the doctrine advanced by the gentleman from Rhode Island, that the paying tolls at the canal was no disadvantage to the producer, that it was the foreign consumer that paid the cost of transportation, was, in his opinion, without just foundation. The gentleman overlooks the fact that a great portion of this commerce is a mere barter between the upper and lower country. His doctrine is not true, as applied to foreign markets, unless he can prove that we have a monopoly of the whole trade. For example, our flour has to come into competition with the flour of other countries. We are compelled, without any regard to the cost of trans. portation, to be regulated by the flour of those countries. Does not any man see at once that the cost of transportation is paid by the producer, and not by the consumer? The merchant that ships our flour tells us he cannot afford to give us as much for it, as all the cost of transportation comes out of his profits on the sales. Mr. McCOMAS appealed to the friends of the administration to be consistent with themselves, and to sustain the views of the President. He said that he would remind the committee that millions of dollars had been spent on the seaboard in making fortifications, lighthouses, breakwaters, &c., when but a very small portion of the public money had ever crossed the Allegany mountains. He thought it but an act of common justice to the West for eastern gentlemen to grant the appropriation. They should remember that western men are their brothers; that westen men sustain the burdens of this Government in time of peace, and fight her battles in time of war. Though they may not have as many of the comforts of life as the people of the East, yet a more patriotic people does not breathe American air than lives west of the Allegany mountains. Mr. M. said he had now closed his remarks, and he hoped a proposition so reasonable would find favor from all parts of the House. Mr. FILLMORE rose to inquire of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. POPE] whether the charter of the company did not require that its officers should be stockholders. If this were so, and the United States should purchase out the stock, the charter must be destroyed; for the company, owning no stock, could have no officers; and in that case, by what title could the United States hold the property, and by what authority could they exact any toll? Mr. LYTLE, having obtained the floor, moved that the committee rise; but withdrew his motion at the request of Mr. WARDWELL, when a contest arose about the consideration of other bills by the committee. The order of business having been agreed upon, Mr. POPE stated that he had examined the charter, and that the difficulty suggested by the honorable gen. tleman from New York [Mr. FILLMORE] did exist; but it could be obviated by a conditional clause in the bill providing for the difficulty. The question was now taken on the amendment proposed by Mr. POPE, appropriating the money necessary to make the purchase of stock, and decided in the negative: Ayes 59, noes 71. Mr. POPE moved an amendment respecting officers of the company; which also was rejected. The committee thereupon rose and reported the bill, together with some others which had been considered, to the House. In the House, Mr. BARRINGER suggested that there had been some error in the reporting of the bill, since Mr. LYTLE had obtained the floor with an intention to address the committee. The understanding had been that this bill should have remained in committee. The CHAIR said that the bill having been reported, there was no other course to get it back into committee but to move that it be recommitted. [FEB. 6, 1835. This motion, however, was not made. Mr. BARRINGER then said that it struck him that, if this bill should pass, it laid the foundation for purchasing up the stock of every canal and railroad in which more than one State should have an interest. Gentlemen might as well bring in a bill to purchase the great Erie canal in New York, and make it a free way. The same argument would justify the one as the other. Ohio and all the Western States were interested in the use of that canal, as they were in that of the Ohio river. Was it right that their produce should be taxed on the one canal and not on the other? Why must their produce be taxed if it travelled eastward, and not if it travelled southward? The same arguments would lead to purchasing out the stock of the Chesapeake and Ohio canal. How could Congress grant the one and refuse the other? Were they not bound to mete out equal justice to all? Government gave the State of Alabama 400,000 acres of choice land to aid in the construction of a canal round the Muscle shoals. The Southern and Western States were all interested in that canal, and it was ten times the length of this Louisville and Portland canal, and the toll would have to be in proportion; yet who complained of paying toll on that canal? Mr. B. said he could not but admire the argument of the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. HAWES.] The disinterestedness which that gentleman had manifested did him the highest honor. He fully agreed with him in the belief that, as soon as the toll should be abolished, and the canal become public property, the whole work would speedily go to dilapidation and ruin, and the individual loss which would consequently be experienced would far exceed the whole amount of money that had been paid for tolls from the commencement. Mr. B. was utterly opposed to the bill. He considered it the entering wedge to an expense so great that none could conjecture its amount. It established a principle which would bind the House to purchase every work of a national character which its owners wished to sell. It was not the amount of money, it was the principle, which alarmed him. He hoped the enacting clause of the bill would be stricken out. On motion of Mr. LYTLE the further consideration of the bill was postponed till Monday next. COMMISSIONER OF PENSIONS. The bill continuing the office of commissioner of pensions coming up next in order, Mr. MCKAY proposed to amend it by transferring the superintendence of its duties from the Secretary of the Treasury to the Secretary of War; which was agreed to, and the bill was ordered to its third reading. The House then adjourned. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 6. FUEL FOR THE POOR. Mr. McVEAN offered the following resolution: Resolved, That the Committee on the District of Columbia be directed to report to this House the amount expended by said committee under the resolution of the 6th of January last, authorizing and instructing them to ascertain the amount of fuel that might be necessary for the relief of the suffering poor of the city of Washington, and to place the same at the disposal of the corpora instructed to desist from further expenditure under the tion for that purpose; and, also, that said committee be authority derived from said resolution, and that said resolution be expunged from the journal of the House. Mr. EVANS demanded the question of consideration upon the resolution. Mr. HAMER called for the yeas and nays; which were ordered. Mr. McVEAN moved a call of the House; which was rejected. Mr. McVEAN appealed to the gentleman from Maine [Mr. EVANS] to withdraw his motion, in order to permit him to state the reasons which had induced him to offer the resolution. Mr. EVANS thought, he said, that the gentleman had better withdraw his resolution. But if he would strike out the last clause of the resolution, providing that the resolution of the 6th of January should be expunged from the journal, he would withdraw the motion. Mr. McVEAN said that, at the suggestion of several gentlemen around him, he would modify the resolution by leaving out the last clause. Mr. EVANS withdrew the motion for the question of consideration. Mr. WILDE renewed the motion for the question of consideration. Mr. HAMER called for the yeas and nays on the motion, and they were ordered. Mr. J. Q. ADAMS rose to offer some remarks on the question, when The SPEAKER pronounced that it was not in order to discuss it. The question being taken, it was decided in the affirmative: Yeas 124, nays 54. So the House agreed to consider the resolution. Mr. EVANS was not, he said, desirous that the expenditure under the resolution of the 6th ultimo should be continued to be made. The emergency which originated it had gone by. The objection which he had to the resolution as it was at first offered was, that it proposed to expunge from the journals of the House a resolution which it had adopted. He was opposed to the resolution as it now stood, because it cast a censurę upon the House for having adopted the resolution of the 6th. It used the phrase "purporting" to authorize, and "under color of authority," as if the resolution of the 6th contained no authority. He proposed to amend the resolution by striking out the word "purporting," so as to read authorizing and instructing, and by striking out "under color of." Mr. McVEAN opposed the motion to amend, as it would, he said, defeat the object of the resolution. It was not his purpose to reflect, either upon the course of the Committee on the District of Columbia, or upon that of the House, or any member of the House, but he believed the resolution of the 6th January was passed without any authority, and was a palpable infraction of the constitution, which required that no appropriation of public money should be made but by law. The resolu tion of the 6th of January was not a law. It was a separate regulation of this House, and, in his opinion, was as inoperative as if it was merely the dictum of an individual member of the House. The appropriation made by this resolution was paid out of a fund which was set apart for the contingent expenses of the House. It might be proper to have a con. tingent fund to defray the expenses attending the transaction of the proper legislative business of the House, though such fund was liable to great abuse. But he would ask whether the support of the poor formed a part of the necessary expenses attending the discharge of the legislative business of this House? It was too absurd to be maintained. If the House had the right to support the poor, they had also the right to educate the poor, and to establish colleges and asylums, for their reception, instruction, and care. He was well aware that this was a small matter, and that the resolution was adopted as a charitable deed. But charity did not excuse or justify a breach of the constitution. Mr. CHINN said it was due to himself and to the committee to make a brief statement to the House. For [H. OF R. himself, he would say that he voted against the original resolution of the House, because, however much his feelings might have been enlisted, he did not consider himself authorized to vote for it. For the Committee on the District of Columbia, he would say that, when the original resolution of this House was taken up by the committee and considered, they found that the direction to them was positive; that they had no discretion, except as to the amount; that they had no right to disregard the positive command of the House. They therefore made the proper inquiry of the city authority, and upon receiving an answer, showing an appalling degree and extent of distress, and that one hundred and fifty cords of wood were wanted, the committee directed them to draw upon the Clerk of this House for fifty cords, upon two occasions, amounting in all to one hundred cords. This was during the recent season of intense cold. Since that, the committee had done nothing, nor did he believe that they intended to do more under that resolution, which was for "immediate relief." Mr. McKENNAN said it seemed to him to be now too late to effect any good purpose by this proposition. The proper time to urge the constitutional objection to the resolution was when it was under consideration. Now that it had been passed, and the expenditure authorized by it made, and the poor relieved, it seemed to him to be idle to attempt to urge any objection to the resolution. The committee had stated what they had done; and the whole amount of wood which they appropriated under the resolution did not allow more than sixteen cords for each ward of the city. The sufferings of the poor in this city, during the late severe spell of cold weather, were of the most heart-rending character, and he apprehended that the constitutional scruples of the gentleman from New York would have been removed, if he had listened, as the committee did, to some of the details of their sufferings, as stated by the guardians of the poor of this city. In one instance, a family was visited by one of the guardians of the poor, consisting of five children, and their parents. The father was lying on a bed of sickness-not a bed, for there was none in the house-but in a sack of straw, into which he was placed, to prevent him from freezing. They were wholly destitute of fuel, and must have perished with cold but for the relief afforded them. It was not the intention of the committee to act any further on the subject, as the emergency had passed away. Believing that the resolution was unnecessary, and that its consideration would be a waste of time, he moved to lay it on the table. Before the question was taken, on motion of Mr. BROWN, the House proceeded to the consideration of the orders of the day. The House then went into the consideration of private bills, on which the remainder of the day was spent; when The House adjourned. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 7. EXPEDITION TO THE SOUTH SEAS. Mr. PEARCE, of Rhode Island, from the Committee on Commerce, reported a bill to provide for an expedition to the Pacific ocean and the South seas; which was read twice, and committed to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and the report and accompanying documents ordered to be printed. Mr. PHILLIPS subsequently, in the course of the day, submitted a motion to print 2,000 extra copies of the above report. It was not intended, he said, to act on the subject at the present session, but the report was designed to spread information on the subject among the members of the House, and their constituents. The motion lies one day, of course. DRAUGHTSMAN TO THE HOUSE. Mr. SCHLEY, by consent, submitted the following resolution: Resolved, That the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads be instructed to inquire into the expediency of abolishing the office of draughtsman to the House of Representatives, and discontinuing the annual expenditure of fifteen hundred dollars now paid to that officer. Mr. McKENNAN said he would like to know the reasons which had induced the gentleman from Georgia to offer this resolution. Several years ago, the office of draughtsman had been, after much discussion, abolished. It had subsequently, however, been found necessary to restore the former order of things, and to reinstate this officer of the House. Mr. SCHLEY said it was true that this office, upon consideration, had heretofore been abolished, and subsequently re-established, for what reason he knew not. The individual who occupied this office was daily engaged in reporting the proceedings of this House for a morning paper of this city, while a gentleman, by the name of Burr, was employed in preparing those maps for the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads which it was the peculiar duty of the draughtsman of the House to perform. What would be the extra expense thus incurred, he knew not; but presumed it would exceed $1,500. He saw no necessity for continuing this office, if it was necessary to employ another individual to perform its duties, while the incumbent was employed as a reporter for a newspaper. His attention had been drawn to the subject by the fact that Mr. Burr had been employed to execute the necesary maps_required by the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads. He could not remain silent, and see such a wasteful and prodigal expenditure of the public money, without interposing an objection. He was aware of the facility with which the hangers on of this House manage to put their hands into the public treasury. He considered himself, and every member of this House, in the capacity of a guardian of the public treasure, and he felt the same obligation to take care of it that he would to take care of the estate of minors for whom he had been legally appointed the guardian. The maps required by the committees of the House, he was satisfied, could be procured at less expense than the sum now paid. In conclusion, he could see no good reason why another person should be employed to do this work while the regular officer of the House, instead of attending to his duties, was engaged as a reporter of its proceedings. Mr. MCKENNAN admired the spirit of economy which seemed to actuate the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. SCHLEY.] He was bound to suppose that the resolution was solely dictated by considerations of economy. It was probable, however, that the object was to procure these maps to be made by some other person; that it was intended to make room for some favorite. He had understood that greater facilities had been afforded at the Post Office Department to another individual than were extended to the draughtsman of this House. The duties of this officer were not confined to the Post Office Department. He was also assiduously engaged in the performance of duties required by the Committee on Roads and Canals, and other committees. He was unwilling that this office should be abolished, merely for the purpose of transferring its duties to some favorite. Mr. PEARCE said, if the officer of the House did not execute the duties required of him, it might be a proper subject of inquiry. He could not, however, see the propriety of transferring the duties from the present officer to another-nothing could be gained by it. The duties of the draughtsman were not confined to the Committee on the Post Office. The Committees on Public [FEB. 7, 1835. and Private Land Claims, and on Roads and Canals, required the constant services of this officer. Several of the members of his family were also engaged in aiding him in the performance of his duties. If an inquiry was necessary, it was a matter of doubt to what committee it should go. About once in two years, when the Committee on the Post Office reported a bill creating new post routes, the services of the draughtsman were necessary. The other committees to which he had referred, required his services almost daily. In conclusion, he could see no reason for a change. It was the duty of the Clerk of the House to see that this officer did his duty, and if Mr. Burr had been employed by the Clerk, it was his duty to explain why this had been done. Mr. LOVE said, as a general rule, he was in favor of resolutions of inquiry. He was satisfied his friend from Georgia [Mr. SCHLEY] had no other motive in offering the resolution, than a high regard to duty and the public interest; that he was actuated by no sinister views. He knew that several of the sons of the draughtsman of the House, who were every way competent, were engaged in aiding him in the performance of his duties. It should, therefore, not be an objection to him that he spent three hours each day in reporting the speeches of members, (in a manner, too, better than any other reporter.) It would be recollected that, after much debate at a former session, on the subject of reform, the only result was an abolition of the office of draughtsman. It had been subsequently found necessary to reinstate this officer. If the gentleman would modify his resolu tion so as to inquire into all the abuses in the public departments, with a view to reform, he should have his hearty assent. He would go with him most heartily in all attempts to correct abuses. He had been informed that, after the office of draughtsman was abolished, it had cost ten times more to procure the necessary work to be done by the job, than was paid to this officer. Why had not the regular draughtsman of the House been called upon to execute the work which had been done by another? If he had been so called upon, and refused, then it would be a proper subject of inquiry. In conclusion, he repeated that if the gentleman would so shape his resolution as to inquire into any and all abuses which might exist in the departments, he should have his cordial co-operation. Mr. STEWART said this was rather a small matter, although it seemed likely to lead to a long debate. There were but three weeks remaining of the present session, and much important business to be acted upon. He would therefore move to lay the resolution on the table. Mr. SCHLEY asked for the yeas and nays on the mo tion; which were ordered. Mr. LOVE could not vote to lay the resolution on the table, although he was opposed to the adoption of the resolution in its present shape. Mr. STEWART withdrew his motion to lay the resolution on the table. Mr. SCHLEY said it was impossible for him to know the motives which actuated the course of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. MCKENNAN.] He had thought fit to attribute improper motives to him, (Mr. S.) It would, perhaps, be better for the gentleman to look to his own motives, without reflecting upon those of others. He was not in the habit of imputing unworthy motives to others, and he had no evidence that would authorize him to impute such to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. MCKENNAN.] But if the old maxim be true, that we judge others by ourselves," then it would follow that the gentleman made propositions from unworthy motives. He, (Mr. S.,) however, did not believe the gentleman capable of such a course. In offering the resolution, he had no favorite in view, nor was his mo tion the result of management or preconcert. He had no acquaintance with any person qualified to discharge the duties of the draughtsman. No applications had been made to him. No persons solicited him for favors here. He had not seen any such persons. His associations did not lead him to such discoveries. He had offered the resolution without consulting any person. He had daily seen the draughtsman of the House engaged in reporting speeches here, while another individual was employed at the public expense to discharge his duties. He had inquired why this was the case, and had obtained no satisfactory reply. If Mr. Stansbury was incompetent or unable to perform these duties, another should be appointed in his place. If large sums were to be paid to another for these services, it was proper that this almost useless officer of the House should be dispensed with. He barely knew the present incumbent when he saw him. He had no objections to him personally. He was actuated, in offering the resolution, by considerations of public duty alone. It had been said that this officer, particularly in relation to the duties required by the land committees, performed his duties faithfully. If, I upon inquiry, it should be found that all the services required of this officer were performed properly and with fidelity, there would be an end of the matter, and he, for one, would vote against the abolition of the office. If, on the contrary, this office, under present circumstances, should, upon inquiry, be found to be unnecessary, he presumed no gentleman would vote for its continuance. He was surprised that gentlemen should be opposed to this inquiry. Do they fear it? In relation to the suggestion of his friend from Kentucky, [Mr. LovE,] as to the propriety of extending the inquiry to the other supposed abuses in the departments of the Government, he should not object to such a proceeding, if it were brought forward in a separate proposition. It was best to do one thing at a time. If he was aware of any other abuses, he would not hesitate to bring them to the consideration of the House. If the gentleman from Kentucky would propose a resolution of the character indicated by him, he would go for it. He would be perfectly willing that a select committee should be raised on any such resolution, with the gentleman from Kentucky at its head, and he would be willing to stand at the foot of such committee, for the purpose of ferreting out any abuses which might be supposed to exist. Mr. H. EVERETT desired to know, if maps had been made by order of the House, whether the draughtsman of the House had been first required to do the service, previous to the employment of another. Mr. Burr, he understood, was the peculiar officer of the Post Office Department. He wished to know, also, whether the maps alluded to had been ordered by the Post Office Committee. Mr. SCHLEY replied, that he understood Mr. Burr had been employed under a resolution of the House; whether at the instance of the Committee on the Post Office, he knew not. Mr. BRIGGS said that, during the last session of Congress, the Committee on the Post Office required various maps connected with their duties. The draughtsman of the House had been required to execute them, which he failed to do, because, as he alleged, the proper facilities were withheld from him at the Department. The draughtsman had applied at the Department for a map necessary to the performance of the duty required, but he was informed that it could not be taken from the Department, and could only be used in the office. knew not whether this apology of the draughtsman was considered sufficient. The maps were necessary, and the Clerk of the House was required by resolution to procure their execution. The Clerk did not apply to VOL. XI.-77 He [H. OF R. the draughtsman of the House, under the circumstances; as he understood, from the terms of the resolution, that he was required to employ another individual to perform the service. He considered this officer essentially necessary. The resolution to which he had referred showed the propriety of continuing this office. The draughtsman employed under the resolution had been constantly employed in the discharge of the duty assigned to him, and it would take months to complete the work. If the gentleman was anxious to know whether this officer performed his duties faithfully, he had better direct his inquiry to that point. He was not prepared to say whether this officer had or had not discharged the duties assigned him with fidelity. He had no objection to the inquiry. If the office were abolished, nothing would be gained by it, as the services would have to be performed by the job, or otherwise, at an expense equal, if not greater than that at present allowed. The resolution was then agreed to. PRINTER TO CONGRESS. Mr. ROBERTSON, by leave, offered the following resolutions: Resolved, That the office or appointment of printer to the Senate and House of Representatives, respectively, ought to be abolished or dispensed with. Resolved, That in future all printing on public account should be done under contracts with such persons, and subject to such regulations, as may be authorized and prescribed by law; and that, to this end, the Secretary of the Senate, the Clerk of the House of Representatives, the Postmaster General, and the Secretary of the Treasury, be authorized and required to advertise, respectively, for sealed proposals, to execute-first, all printing by order or on account of the Senate; secondly, all printing on account of the House of Representatives; thirdly, all printing within the District of Columbia, for the Post Office Department; and, fourthly, all other printing, within the said District, on public account; the said proposals to be returned to and lodged in the office of the Attorney General, and to be opened on some day to be prescribed by law, and mentioned in the advertisements, in the presence of the said Attorney General and all the officers above named, and the contracts to be then and there entered into by and between the said officers, respectively, acting on behalf of the United States, and such persons as may be willing to undertake the said printing on the most advantageous terms to the public, and to give adequate security for the faithful execution of the work. Provided, That no person, nor company, employed by any one of the officers authorized to enter into contracts for the same, shall be employed or concerned in any other printing on public account, authorized to be contracted for by the other officers, respectively; and in case of an equality in two or more bids, the preference shall be given to the person whose proposals were first lodged in the Attorney General's Office. Provided, also, That no person holding any office or appointment under the Government shall be employed to do any part of the public printing, or to have an interest or concern therein. Mr. EVANS said the resolution was one of considerable importance, and as the hour devoted to reports and resolutions had nearly expired, he would prefer that the resolutions should be printed, and postponed to Monday; and that the House should proceed to the consideration of the orders of the day. Mr. ROBERTSON would not object to a postponement of his resolution to Monday, provided it should be made the special order for that day. He did not propose to discuss it at the present time. The period had however arrived when, under a joint rule of the two Houses, it became necessary to choose a printer. If, |