For congressional remarks that are not speeches.
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.
After a few remarks by Messrs. VAN BUREN and JOHNSTON, of Lou- Mr HOLMES moved to postpone the further consideration of the bill to the first Monday in December next, which was decided in the affirmative, by yeas and nays, as follows: YEAS-Messrs Barton, Berrien, Bouligny, Branch, Chandler, Clayton, Dickerson, Eaton, Findlay, Harper, Hayne, Holmes, King, Marks, Reed, Smith, Tazewell, Van Buren,... Continue Reading
Mr. VAN BUREN, from the Committee on the Judiciary reported a bill regulating processes in the courts of the United States, admitted into the Union, since the 29th of February, 1789; which was ready, and passed to a second reading.
Mr. VAN BUREN, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the message from the House, requesting a conference on the subject of the Judiciary bill, made the following report: “The Judiciary Committee, on the message from the House of Representatives, proposing a conference on the subject of the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, on the amendment proposed by the Senate to the bill... Continue Reading
The Senate then took up the bill “to alter the times of holding the Circuit Courts of the United States for the District of New York, and the April term of the Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut. (This bill changes the time of holding the Circuit Court in the District of New York to the last Mondays in May and November, and the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of... Continue Reading
On motion of Mr. VAN BUREN, the Message from the House requesting a conference on the subject of the Judiciary Bill, was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. VAN BUREN remarked, that, by the act organizing the Territorial Government of Florida, it was necessary that all the acts of the Governor and General should be approved by Congress before they become absolute[.] This regulation was well known, and as these acts granting divorces had been passed in December last, it was not probable that new connections had been formed since that time.
Mr. VAN BUREN, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported a bill to extend the Patent of Jonathan Lucas, Jun. (for a machine for cleaning rice) for a further period of fourteen years; which was read, and passed to a second reading.
A short debate took place on this notion between Messrs. BELL, BRANCH VAN BUREN, MILLS, and BERRIEN; Mr. BRANCH claiming the privilege of being allowed to reply to the arguments which had been urged against his motion, and Mr. MILLS stating the necessity he should be under, by information that he had received from home, of absenting himself in a short time from the Senate.
On motion of Mr. VAN BU[R]EN, the Senate took up the bill to alter the time of holding the terms of the Supreme Court of the United States; (from the first Monday in February to the seoncd Monday in January, annually.) . . . Mr. VAN BUREN observed, that the bill simply proposed to extend the term of the Supreme Court three weeks. The necessity for this, and all the reasons on the subject being so... Continue Reading