United States Bank. On the 10th of February, Mr. M'Duffie reported a bill to modify and renew the Charter of the Bank of the United States, for twenty years from March 3, 1831, giving Congress the right, upon three years' notice, to repeal the act after ten years. On the 27th, Mr. Clayton of Georgia, moved for the appointment of a Select Committee, with power to send for persons and papers, "to examine into the affairs of the Bank of the United States." In the debate which ensued, Mr. Clayton preferred seven specific charges against the bank, each of which he considered as tantamount to a forfeiture of its charter; they were,-the issue of branch bank orders as a currency, usury on broken bank notes in Kentucky and Ohio, disguised loans to obtain more than six per cent. interest, non-user of the charter in not issuing bills from some of the branches for seven years, building houses to rent, not having the due proportion of coin in the capital stocks, and allowing foreigners to vote for directors. Mr. Clayton also brought fifteen other charges against the bank, going to show, if they were true, the inexpediency of renewing the charter; they were, not receiving at par, at the mother bank and at the different branches, the notes of each other; making a difference in receiving notes between the government and citizens; making a difference between members of Congress and other citizens, in favor of the former; allowing the undue accumulation of proxies in the hands of a few, to control the election of directors; "a strong suspicion of secret understanding between the banks and brokers, to job in stocks ;' subsidies and loans "to printers, editors and lawyers" for other purposes than regular bank business; making distinctions in favor of merchants in selling bills of exchange; forcing local banks and debtors to petition for a renewal of the charter, and thus imposing upon Congress; unsafe and imprudent management; inability to take up her notes and pay her deposites; excessive issues on public deposites; delusive accounts of the prosperity of the bank; "intolerable oppression on the South and West," by draining those parts of the country of specie, by means of unlawful currency; the establishment of single persons as agents, to transact the business of branches; and giving authority to state banks to discount their bills. Mr. M'Duffie immediately replied to these specifications. He said there were but one or two of them which professed to disclose any other than matters of general notoriety. He contended that the issue of branch bank orders was expressly authorized by the charter; that the transaction charged as usurious was a perfectly fair transaction, and had been so decided; that the dealing in disguised loans and domestic bills of exchange was an ordinary and unexceptionable transaction, the bank having a right to buy and sell at any per cent.; that the bank was not obliged to issue notes at any of its branches; that the bank had a right to build upon and use land which came into its possession in a legal manner; that the charge of a want of a due proportion of specie in the capital, was utterly unfounded, the circulation in notes being only twentyfour millions of dollars beside deposites; and that the bank could not prevent an American stockholder from voting on stock held by him on the ground of a secret trust. Mr. M'Duffie reviewed the other specifications in like manner, denying some, confuting others, and arguing to show that others, were legal and ordinary business transactions; he contended that "with the exception of the crime of being suspected of a secret understanding with brokers to cheat the government, and one or two kindred charges, resting on the same shadowy foundation," the whole indictment contained nothing that had not been reiterated and refuted an hundred times. He was decidedly opposed to the appointment of any inquisitorial commission until some facts were brought forward, sufficient to raise a presumption against the bank. An animated debate then took place, during which it was urged in favor of the resolution that an investigation was necessary before the question of rechartering could be acted upon, that the charges of themselves furnished sufficient grounds for an investigation, that it ought to be gladly met by the friends of the Bank, that an aspect of concealment was more injurious than a ready acquiescence in the object of the resolution, that the bank seemed to shun inquiry, that the application for a renewal at this time was a mere political manœuvre, calculated to operate upon the Presidential election, and that there was no necessity for renewing the charter at the present session. In reply it was argued that the President himself had pressed the subject upon Congress in each of his messages, that all the transactions of the bank were known as well at Washington as at Philadel phia, that all the necessary information could be obtained at the Treasury department, that the passage of the resolution would prevent any action at this session upon the bill for rechartering the bank, and that any delay would be injurious to the country, and more especially to the western part of it. A motion to refer the inquiry to the Committee of Ways and Means, for the purpose of obtaining an earlier report than could be received from a select committee, was opposed as tending to evade the objects in view, and as unparliamentary, a majority of that committee being friendly to the bank,-and finally withdrawn. The debate was then resumed upon the original proposition, and assuming more of a party character, became much more discursive. Mr. Root, of New-York, proposed as an amendment, that the committee should be chosen by ballot by the House, which was rejected, ayes 88, noes 92. This vote was reconsidered, and after further debate again decided in the negative by the casting vote of the speaker,—yeas 100, nays 100. [The yeas were 101 the nays 99 when the vote was taken, but before it was finally declared, Mr. Plummer of Mississippi, who had voted in the affirmative, changed his vote, and divided the House equally, giving the casting vote to the Speaker.] An amendment was next offered by Mr. Wayne of Georgia, providing that the committee should meet during the recess, and report in December next, which was rejected, yeas 26, nays 164. Mr. Adams of Massachusetts, moved an amendment, re quiring the select committee to repair to Philadelphia, to inspect the books and examine the proceedings of the bank, to report whether its charter has been violated or not, and to make their final report on or before the 21st day of April; and this amendment, after a protracted session, and various propositions calculated to defeat it, was adopted, on the 14th of March, by a majority of fourteen,-ayes 106, noes 92. The com mittee was appointed by the Speaker on the ensuing day, and is composed of Messrs. Clayton of Georgia, Adams of Massachusetts, M'Duffie of South Carolina, Johnson of Kentucky, Cambreleng of New-York, Thomas of Maryland and Watmough of Pennsylvania. Pending this discussion in the House, a bill was reported in the Senate, for rechartering the bank, with certain modifications. Cherokee Indians. On the 5th of March, (two days after the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Cherokee Missionaries, see p. 339,) Mr. Adams presented to the House of Representatives a memorial from a number Congress to adopt such measures" as of citizens of New-York, requesting shall enforce the laws of the Union, preserve inviolate the faith of treaties solemnly executed, vindicate the constitutional authority of the Federal Government, and secure our national character from lasting shame and reproach." Upon several motions to refer it to different committees, a discussion of a very animated character ensued, which occupied the House till nearly six o'clock in the evening, when it was terminated by a successful call for the previous He question, and the memorial was referred. ayes 96, noes 93, to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. The debate was hardly of sufficient importance to require an abstract of what was uttered by different speakers. It was chiefly remarkable for the extraordinary language used by Mr. Clayton, one of the representatives of Georgia. spoke of the petitioners and the memorial as 66 meddling with what did not nently in the presentation of such a concern them," and "acting impertipaper;" he "hoped and believed" the decision of the Supreme Court "would be resisted," and he was sure it "never would be executed till Georgia was made a howling wilderness." He had "risen for the express purpose of showing his contempt for the memorial." It proceeded from a few pragmatical individuals who were disposed to be busy bodies in other men's matters." If the state, "they would throw such a meHouse had any respect for a sovereign morial under the table, and not aggravate to a yet higher degree the feelings of a state already wrought up to a higher pitch than she could bear, and who only wanted the application of a match to blow the Union into ten thousand fragments," &c. &c. A motion to lay the memorial on the table was rejected, ayes 91, noes 92. The debate was resumed with renewed warmth, and terminated as we have stated. Creek Treaty. A treaty was concluded with a delegation of the Creeks, at Washington, on the 24th of March, by House, and attend to the interests of my con→ Very respectfully, yours, WILLIAM STANBERRY, Mr. Vance thereupon offered the following resolution : Resolved, That the Speaker do issue his warrant, directed to the Sergeant-at-Arms attending to the House, commanding him to take in custody, wherever to be found, the body of SAMUEL HOUSTON, and the same in his custody to keep, subject to the further order and discretion of the House. which they have ceded to the United States all their lands East of the Mississippi. Ninety principal chiefs are allowed to select one section each, and every other head of a Creek family one half section each, to be reserved from sale for five years; a section of land contains six hundred and forty acres; the Indians will be allowed to dispose of these reservations, if they choose to sell, or if they prefer remaining, at the end of the five years they will receive land patents in fee simple from the United States. Twenty sections are reserved, to be under the direction of the President, for the benefit of orphan Creek children; and twenty-nine sections to be given to those Creeks to whom they may be assigned by the tribe. They will receive in money, an annuity of twelve thousand dollars for five years, after which it will be reduced to ten thousand dollars, and paid for fifteen years; one hundred thousand dollars for the payment of their debts, plated by General Houston with Major Eaton. to be applied as they may direct, and in full consideration of all improvements; fifty-three thousand two hundred and eighty dollars in payment for certain claims, expenses and judgements; and three life annuities, amounting to four hundred dollars per annum. The Creeks will be removed West of the Mississippi at the expense of the United States, receiving subsistence on the journey, and for one year after their arrival at their new homes, but no Indian will be compelled to emigrate. Three thousand dollars will be allowed for twenty years for educating the children; two blacksmiths will be supported among them for twenty years;-together with presents of rifles, ammunition, blankets, iron, steel, &c. The Creek country West of the Mississippi, is to be "solemnly guaranteed to the Creek Indians," where they will be allowed to govern themselves, so far as may be compatible with the general jurisdiction which Congress may think proper to exercise. Breach of Privilege. On Saturday, April 14, the Speaker laid before the House of Representatives the following letter from the Hon. Wm. Stanberry, of Ohio. To the Hon. ANDREW STEVENSON, Speaker of the House of Representatives: SIR: I was waylaid in the street, near to my boarding-house, last night, about 8 o'clock, and attacked, knocked down by a bludgeon, and severely bruised and wounded by SAMUEL HOUSTON, late of Tennessee, for words spoken in my place in the House of Representatives; by reason of which I am confined to my bed, and unable to discharge my duties in the A long and very interesting debate arose upon this resolution, in which the principal speakers were Messrs. Polk, Jenifer, Vance, Coulter, Patton, Drayton, Speight, Davis and Everett of *The pretext for this outrage was the remarks which Mr. Stanberry deemed it proper to make in the House, relative to the contract for furnishing rations to emigrant Indians, contem That the reader may know what was said, we here give his remarks. Mr. S. said: "The superintendent of the Cumberland Road is not the only officer who has been suffered to continue in office after proofs of his trangressions had reached the President. Was the late Secretary of War removed in consequence of his attempt, fraudulently, to give to Governor Houston the contract for Indian rations? I derive my knowledge of this transaction not from the columns of the Telegraph. The whole affair was known to me at the time it took place. The editor of the Telegraph gives himself too much credit for defeating this attempted fraud. I understood that it was in consequence of the remonstrances of the delegate from Arkansas, that the contract was not completed. There is one fact, however, for which I am indebted to the Telegraph; and that is, that the President had full knowledge of the business, and that it did not meet with his disapprobation." Upon reading the report of Mr. Stanberry's speech in the Intelligencer, Mr. Houston addressed him a note, through a member of Congress from Tennessee, demanding an explanation. Mr. Stanberry informed the member who bore the demand, that he recognized no right in Mr. Houston to interrogate him upon the subject. Houston then threatened that he would make a personal assault, and accordingly he, accompanied by an attendant, both armed with heavy bludgeons, was, for some days, seen sauntering about the Capitol, and Houston himself was frequently on the privileged seats within the Hall of the House, It was said, and we believe with truth, that his intention to make the attack was known to sundry members of Congress; and on Friday, about 8 o'clock, Mr. Stanberry was assaulted near his lodgings, in the manner he has stated, knocked down with a bludgeon, and much and severely injured-his right arm being disabled, the left hand severely fractured, and his head and body much beaten and bruised. [U. S. Telegraph, April 16.] Numerous letters from Washington confirm the statement above given in regard to the attack on Mr. Stanberry. Many of them represent it in more aggravating colors. Mass. Doddridge, Burges, Foster of Georgia, Beardsley of New-York, and Wickliffe of Kentucky. The last named gentleman put a stop to the discussion by a call for the previous question-which was sustained, and Mr. Vance's resolution was adopted—ayes 145, noes 25. On Monday, April 16, the gallery of the House of Representatives was crowded, before the usual hour for the meeting of the House. When it was stated by the Speaker that Samuel Houston was in the custody of the House, Mr. Davis of Mass. offered a resolution, that the defendant be brought to the bar on Thursday, on the ground that the complainant, Mr. Stanberry, would not be able to appear in his place before that time. Mr. Carson of North-Carolina, suggested that Mr. Houston ought to be admitted to bail. Mr. Mitchell of South-Carolina, observed that it was proper to approach the question with great calmness, coolness, &c. and to facilitate this object, he moved that Mr. Houston be discharged! Mr. Hawes of Kentucky then rose, and with much warmth claimed the immediate trial of the defendant, who had been arrested in violation of the constitutional power of the House. He contended that the motion of Mr. Davis was intended to postpone the discussion of the subject, until the charges made on Saturday against the defendant should have been circulated and have produced their effect. He also denounced Mr. Doddridge of Virginia, and his colleague, Mr. Wickliffe, for having moved the previous question, asserting that the former could not be considered the act of Virginia, and that the latter must have been governed by his appetite and the want of his dinner. He insisted that the trial should proceed instantly, unless the defendant wished to postpone it, waiving all remarks upon the merits of the case, until another stage of the proceedings. These remarks brought out Mr. Wickliffe in a brief reproof and defence of himself. Mr. Doddridge followed in reply to certain remarks made by Mr. Drayton on Saturday, [Mr. Drayton had said that the call for the previous question was little less than treason to the Constitution,] and commented upon the conduct of those "who debate all subjects great and small," with great severity, and sarcastic bitterness, asserting that his call for the previous question had been approved by a fair proportion of the silent and unobtrusive wisdom of the House, as evinced by the vote. Mr. Drayton followed, in a some what elaborate explanation, and he in turn was followed by Mr. Doddridge in a few remarks, which were calculated to remove all unkindly feelings between those gentlemen. Mr. Fitzgerald of Tennessee, argued, by way of hypothesis, that Mr. Stanberry had traduced Mr. Houston by his remarks in the House, and libeled him by the publication of his remarks, and was, therefore, justly liable to any punishment which the aggrieved party may choose to inflict; he said Mr. Houston could not be considered " a ruffian" for his proceedings, because he had been a member of Congress, Governor of Tennessee, &c. and had otherwise participated in the honors bestowed by the people; that a member ought to be as much responsible to individuals for what he says, as any other member of the community, and that something is sometimes necessary to check "the exuberance of debate." He entered at some length into the constitutional power of the House. Mr. Arnold of Tennessee, then " rose for the purpose of vindicating the repu tation of Tennessee." "Tennessee felt humbled in dust and ashes that she was ever so humbled" as to have had Samuel Houston to preside over her. "Governor Houston!" he could hardly pronounce the phrase. Mr. Wickliffe made a question of order, but it was decided that the whole matter was open for discussion. Mr. Arnold then resumed his remarks, to explain "the peculiar situation" of Tennessee, by which Mr. Houston "happened to be elected,"which were simply the popularity of Gen. Jackson, the fact that Mr. Houston was known to be a pet of the President, and had sagacity enough to make use of that popularity to get himself into office. Mr. Vance made a question of order, but Mr. Arnold was sustained, and proceeded to "wipe off the indeli ble stigma" which had been cast upon Tennessee. Mr. Irvin of Ohio, interrupted the speaker, with another question of order, arguing that the House, in the investigation before it, ought to be governed by the rules of a Court of Justice, and not by the ordinary rules of legislation. The Speaker replied that the chair could not decide that the House was not acting in its legislative capacity. Mr. Daniell of Kentucky appealed from the decision, on the ground that the defendant was in custody, brought up to answer a specific charge, and that his general character could not be impeached before the introduction of the evidence. The Speaker again stated the question, and again decided that the member from Tennessee must exercise his own discretion in pursuing a course of remarks evidently disapproved by the House, but that his remarks were within the rules. After a little further conversation, Mr. Daniell withdrew his appeal, and Mr. Arnold again proceeded with a few remarks of a similarly exciting character. General Root of New-York, obtained the floor, and spoke for some moments, when he gave way, and Mr. Mitchell withdrew his amendment, and thus narrowed down the debate to the simple resolution of Mr. Davis, as before mentioned. Mr. Davis then explained his object in fixing upon Thursday as the day for proceeding in the trial-which was that Mr. Stanberry was not present; and that the defendant, having disabled the complainant, he could not complain of hardship if he was detained until that gentleman was able to be present. He concluded by moving for leave to modify his resolution, so that Mr. Houston could be immediately brought in. Mr. Speight of North-Carolina now made a new proposition as to the form of proceeding, which elicited much discussion, when it was withdrawn, and the other question resumed upon the motion to bring the defendant immediately before the House, which was carried in the affirmative, about five o'clock without a division. Mr. Houston was then brought in, and inquired of by the Speaker whether he demanded further time, the presence of witnesses, &c. He replied that he did not ask the aid of counsel, that he should desire the presence of witnesses, and would be ready to proceed in about 24 hours. Mr. Davis of Mass. moved the appointment of a Committee of Privileges, to consist of seven members, to consider and report the proceedings proper to be observed by the House in the trial of the case. The resolution was agreed to without debate, and the following members were forthwith appointed by the chair to compose the committee, viz: Messrs. Davis of Mass., Drayton, Taylor, Wayne, Muhlenburg, Clay, and Ellsworth. Ordnance Department. A bill has passed Congress providing for the organization of an Ordnance Department, consisting of a Colonel, Lieutenant Colonel, two Majors, ten Captains, and as many men as the service may require, not exceeding two hundred and fifty in number. The Cherokee Case. The following is a copy of the Mandate of the Supreme Court in the Cherokee case. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, SAMUEL A. WORCESTER, Plaintiff in Error, vs. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Superior Court for the County of Gwinnett, in the state of Georgia, and was argued by counsel; on consideration whereof, it is the opinion of this Court, that the act of the Legislature of the state of Georgia, upon which the indictment in this case is founded, is contrary to the Constitution, Treaties, and Laws of the United States; and that the special plea in bar pleaded by the said Samuel A. Worcester, in manner aforesaid, and relying upon the Constitution, Treaties, and Laws of the United States aforesaid, is a good bar and defence to the said indictment by the said Samuel A. Worcester; and as such ought to have been allowed and admitted by the said Superior Court for the County of Gwinnett, in |