For congressional remarks that are not speeches.
Mr. VAN BUREN, from the same committee, also reported the Bill giving the assent of Congress to an act of the Legislature of Alabama, incorporating the Cahawba Navigation Company, without amendment.
The bill to authorize the cancelling of a certain bond therein mentioned, was read a second time. Mr. KING asked for an explanation of the bill. Mr. VAN BUREN called for the reading of the petition, which he said would fully explain the object of the bill. The petition having been read, Mr. V.B. made a few explanatory remarks.
The bill to provide for the adjustment of claims to land in the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Alabama, and the Territories of Florida and Arkansas, being taken up, was, on motion of Mr. VAN BUREN, ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. VAN BUREN said he should vote against it, because, when the Senate decided to strike out the original bill, it seemed a sufficient declaration of its view of the subject. He thought the act of 1823 better than the amendment from the gentleman from Maryland. The former empowered the President to close the ports by proclamation, against any Power whose ports were closed against us. Now, this... Continue Reading
The amendments reported by the Committee on the Judiciary were then read. On the amendment proposed by the Committee to provide for the appointment of three Commissioners instead of one, considerable discussion took place, on which Messrs. CHAMBERS, BERRIEN, VAN BUREN, TAZEWELL HOLMES, and JOHNSTON, of Louisiana, took part, when the question was taken, and decided in the affirmative-22 to 20.
The Senate then took up the bill from the House for the subscription of stock in the Dismal Swamp Canal Company. A long debate ensued on this bill, in which Messrs DENDRICKS, CHANDLER, TAZEWELL, BRANCH, NOBLE, HOLMES, HARRISON, VAN BUREN, ROWAN, CHAMBERS, and REED, took part.
Mr. VAN BUREN expressed dislike to the amendment, which, he observed, threw an air of distrust over the whole subject, as it proposes that the term shall expire on the thirty-first December, while Congress would be in session. He hoped the gentleman would consent to withdraw his amendment until the question on that offered by his colleague should have been taken, when he could renew his motion... Continue Reading
Mr. VAN BUREN, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported the bill to provide for taking evidence in the Courts of the United States, in certain cases, with amendments, which were read. The Senate then proceeded to the consideration of Executive business and, after about two hours spent therein, Adjourned to Tuesday next.
The following motion, by Mr. CHAMBERS, was taken up: "Resolved, That, in the appointment of the standing committees, the Senate will proceed by severally appointing the Chairman of each committee, and then by one ballot for the other members necessary to complete the same; and a majority of the whole number of votes given shall be necessary to the choice of chairman." A short discussion took... Continue Reading
Mr. VAN BUREN, from the same committee, to whom was referred this bill “prescribing the modes of commencing, prosecuting, and deciding controversies between States,” reported it without amendment; but said it was the unanimous opinion of the committee that it ought not to pass. (The bill was, subsequently, on motion of Mr. Robbins, laid on the table.)
Mr. VAN BUREN, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred so much of the President’s Message as related to the Judiciary, together with the several resolutions which had been submitted on that subject, rose to make a report. The subject of amending the Judicial System of the United States had, he said, been before that committee for the last two or three sessions, and had always... Continue Reading
The Senate then resumed the consideration of Mr. BRANCH's motion relative to the power of the Executive to appoint public Ministers. . . . Mr. VAN BUREN then rose to offer his sentiments on the subject; when, on motion of Mr. KING, The Senate adjourned.
Some discussion took place between Messrs. HOLMES, BRANCH, LLOYD, MACON, SMITH, WOODBURY, NOBLE, VAN BUREN, SANFORD, and FINDLAY; and the Senate refused to take it up, on account of the late period of the session not affording time for the discussion of general subjects. The decision on the question of taking it up was—ayes 14, noes 19.
Mr. VAN BUREN offered a few remarks in explanation, showing that the object of the bill was to place the States, which had been admitted into the Union since 1789, precisely on the same footing with old States, as it related to this subject; and the bill was then ordered to a third reading.
After a few remarks in explanation, by Mr. VAN BUREN, the bill was ordered to a third reading.