Part 36

Ordered, That a bill or bills be brought in, pursuant to the said resolution; and that Mr. NEWTON, Mr. HAMMOND, Mr. TALLMADGE, Mr. VAN CORTLANDT, and Mr. MARMADUKE WILLIAMS, do prepare and bring in the same.

THURSDAY, November 24.

Amy Dardin.

On the motion of Mr. CLAIBORNE, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the report of the Committee of Claims on the petition of Amy Dardin. The report is unfavorable to the prayer of the petitioner.

On agreeing to this report, a discussion took place which occupied the greater part of the day. Messrs. J. C. SMITH, GREGG, and MACON supported, and Messrs. CLAIBORNE, SMILIE, and ELLIOT opposed the report; when the question was taken on agreeing to the report of the Committee of Claims and lost--ayes 32.

Mr. CLAIBORNE then moved a resolution, “that the prayer of Amy Dardin is reasonable and ought to be granted.”

Messrs. CLAIBORNE and NICHOLSON supported and Messrs. GRISWOLD and GREGG opposed this resolution, which, on the question being taken, was carried--ayes 61, nays 38.

The committee then rose, and reported their agreement to the resolution.

Mr. GREGG moved an amendment directing the proper accounting officer of the Treasury to settle the claim of Amy Dardin, on the same principle with similar cases, the statute of limitations notwithstanding.

Messrs. GRISWOLD and GREGG supported, Messrs. NICHOLSON and CLAIBORNE opposed the amendment.

A concurrence in the report was then agreed to, and the Committee of Claims instructed to bring in a bill.

FRIDAY, November 25.

Ordered, That the petition of Memucan Hunt, William Polk, and Pleasant Henderson, for themselves and others, addressed to the General Assembly of the State of North Carolina; also, sundry resolutions of the said Assembly, respecting a claim for the value of certain lands in the State of Tennessee, presented to this House on the nineteenth of January, one thousand eight hundred and two, and the report of a select committee thereon, made the twenty-fourth of March, in the same year, be referred to the committee this day appointed on the memorial of the Legislature of Tennessee.

Bankrupt Law.

Mr. NEWTON called for the order of the day on the bill to repeal an act to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States; and the House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the said bill.

Mr. VARNUM moved an amendment, extending the period of repeal to the first of January, 1804, instead of from the passage of the act; and afterwards varied the motion, so as to leave the period of repeal blank.

This motion was supported by Messrs. R. GRISWOLD, EARLY, and SKINNER; and opposed by Messrs. SMILIE, NEWTON, RODNEY, and HASTINGS. Lost--ayes 25.

On motion of Mr. R. GRISWOLD, an amendment was introduced, directing the completion of all proceedings under commissions taken out previous to the repeal.

The committee then rose and reported the bill with the above amendment, in which the House immediately concurred, and ordered, without a division, the bill to be engrossed for a third reading on Monday.

MONDAY, November 28.

Public Roads.

On the call of Mr. JACKSON, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the following resolution:

“Resolved, That provision be made, by law, for the application of one-twentieth part of the net proceeds of the land lying within the State of Ohio, sold, or to be sold by Congress, from and after the 30th day of June, 1802, to the laying out, and making public roads, leading from the navigable waters emptying into the Atlantic, to the Ohio river, and to the said State of Ohio: in conformity with the act of Congress, entitled ‘An act to entitle the people of the eastern division of the territory north-west of the river Ohio, to form a constitution, and State government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States; and for other purposes,’ passed upon the 30th April, 1802, as well as the act passed the 3d of March, 1804, in addition to and in modification of the propositions contained in the act aforesaid; and the ordinance of the convention of the State of Ohio, bearing date the 29th day of November, 1802.”

Mr. JACKSON called for the reading of the acts of Congress which were referred to in the resolution, which was done: he then moved that the committee rise and report their agreement.

Mr. VARNUM said he hoped the question would be taken separately on the resolution.

Mr. JACKSON hoped that gentlemen opposed to the resolution would rise at that time and express their opinions.

Mr. NICHOLSON was opposed to the resolution, but was prevented from indisposition from expressing his sentiments; he would do it at a future period.

Mr. J. RANDOLPH was sorry that the indisposition of his friend from Maryland should prevent him from delivering his sentiments on this occasion. He was himself unprepared to speak on this question, but it appeared to him, from a complete view of the subject some time since, that the resolutions contravened one of the provisions of the law to which it was referred; by reverting to that law, it would be found that in one of the propositions offered by Congress to the State of Ohio, it was provided that one-twentieth part of the net proceeds, arising from the sale of lands in that State, should be laid out in roads to and from it, and laid out under the direction of Congress. The State of Ohio agreed to adopt the propositions if Congress would make an amendment, (which he read.) He wished to call the attention of the committee to the facts, and wished them to attend to the different propositions. He should not have troubled the committee but from an apprehension that when gentlemen had taken up an opinion, they were loth to abandon it. One of the propositions of Congress was, that one-twentieth part of the net proceeds arising from the sale of lands in the State of Ohio should be laid out under the direction of Congress in the making of roads from the Atlantic to that State. The State of Ohio agrees to the proposition with this amendment, that not less than three per cent. should be laid out exclusively in that State, under the direction of their Legislature. He conceived that the last proposition was only a modification of the former, and that the three per cent. was a part of the five, and not an additional allowance; if the latter had been intended, why, he asked, was it not so expressed? There were several other propositions and they were stated to be amendments. He considered Congress never intended to grant more than five per cent. and should therefore vote against the resolutions.