U.S. Senate (Jan. 1825-3 March 1829): Reconciliation with DeWitt Clinton, support for Andrew Jackson, formation of Jacksonian Democratic coalition, election of 1828, gubernatorial tenure.
On motion of Mr. VAN BUREN, the Committee on the Judiciary was discharged from the further consideration of the petition of John Stiles, and the petitioner had leave to withdraw his papers.
The bill relating to Banks in the District of Columbia was read a second time, and, on motion of Mr. VAN BUREN, was ordered to lie on the table.
The bill from the House, in addition to an act to provide for the conveyance of lands to the United States, for certain purposes, was read a second time, explained by Mr. VAN BUREN, and ordered to be engrossed.
The bill from the House, for the relief of Anthony Herman, (allowing a patent to him for certain improvements in the navigation of ships) was read a second time, and, after explanation by Mr. VAN BUREN, was ordered to be engrossed.
The bill to continue in force, and to amend an act to enable claimants to lands in the State of Missouri and Territory of Arkansas to try their claims, was read a second time, and having been explained by Mr. BERRIEN, Mr. VAN BUREN made some remarks, which were not heard by the reporter, and moved to lay the bill upon the table; but withdrew his motion at the request of Mr. BENTON, who spoke at... Continue Reading
Mr. VAN BUREN said, that he had been against the discussion of the bill on two occasions on which it had formerly been proposed for consideration; and he was satisfied then, as he was now, that the time spent in discussing this bill would be uselessly employed. He had been anxious that it might be decided without a debate upon its merits. He stated, on a former occasion, when it was moved to take... Continue Reading
On motion of Mr. VAN BUREN, a bill granting to Wm. O’Connor the pre-emption of certain lands, was taken up, and having been explained by Mr. VAN BUREN and Mr. KING, it was farther discussed by Messrs. CHANDLER, NOBLE, HARRISON, BERRIEN, and HENDRICKS, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.
Mr. VAN BUREN, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported a bill to authorize the banks in the District of Columbia to calculate interest according to Rowlet’s Interest tables. Read, and ordered to a second reading.
Mr. VAN BUREN, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported a bill altering the time of the meeting of the Legislative Council of Florida, and for other purposes, with an amendment.
The bill for the relief of Marinus W. Gilbert (a sutler whose stores were taken at the French Mills by the enemy) was read a second time, and having been explained by Mr. RUGGLES, it was further discussed by Messrs CHANDLER, WEBSTER, JOHNSON, of Kentucky, VAN BUREN, RUGGLES, EATON, BELL, SMITH, of Maryland, TAZEWELL, SANFORD, BERRIEN, and WHITE.
On motion of Mr. MARKS, the bill to provide for the purchase of 500 copies of Gordon’s Digest of the Laws of the United States was taken up, and having been explained by Messrs. VAN BUREN, and ROWAN, a slight discussion took place, on the details of the bill, in which Messrs. WEBSTER, VAN BUREN, BERRIEN, and MARKS, took part; when, on motion of Mr. EATON, the bill was ordered to lie on the table.
On motion of Mr. VAN BUREN, the Committee on the Judiciary was discharged from the further consideration of the petition of Neil D. Shaw.
The bill to continue in force, for a limited time, and to amend an act, entitled “An act to enable claimants to lands within the State of Missouri and Territory of Arkansas, to institute proceedings to try the validity of their claims, was read the second time; and On motion of Mr. VAN BUREN, was laid on the table.
Mr. VAN BUREN said, that the leading feature of the Message of the President was, that part which relates to the alleged breach of privilege. The other matters suggested in it, were of inferior importance and could be acted upon at any time. In relation to the contempt alleged to have been committed, there was upon one point no diversity of opinion, viz. that the subject required and ought to... Continue Reading
Mr. VAN BUREN suggested whether [it] would not be more advisable to let the resol[u]tion lay on the table, for the present, and ta[ke] it up nearer to the close of the Session. [He] presumed it was not contemplated by the ge[n]tleman from S. Carolina, that the seats shou[ld] be changed during the present session, a[nd] therefore no inconvenience could result fro[m] the postponement of the subject... Continue Reading