New York Times vol. 9 no. 2666

              FROM WASHINGTON. 
Brown and Green on the Home-stead Bill. 
Passage of the Anti-Polygamy Bill. 
Mr. Lovejoy Seeks Martyrdom in the House. 
Intense Excitement among Southern Members.
Special Dispatch to the New-York Times. 
WASHINGTON, Thursday, April 5. 
THE MELEE IN THE HOUSE. 
Quite a scene was presented in the House, to-day, while it was in Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union. The Chairman, finding he could not restore order, called the Speaker to his seat. Mr. PENNINGTON'S appeal and the mace of the Ser-geant-at-Arms had the desired effect, and the mem-bers became quiet. Mr. LOVEJOY had reached the climax of his denunciation of Slavery, when he found himself standing immediately in front of the Demo-cratic side of the Hall, gesticulating violent-ly. Mr. PRYOR, springing to his feet, pro-tested against the gentleman crossing over to their side of the hall, and shaking his fist in their faces. Others followed Mr. PRYOR'S example, and at the same time the Republicans backed up Mr. LOVE-JOY. The prospect now was for a general melée. The Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms appeared, but was reques-ted to stand aside, and keep out of the way. All were on their feet, and apparently prepared for ac-tion ; some urging on the row, others aiming to calm the storm. No blows, however, were struck, and peace was restored on the condition that Mr. LOVE-JOY would either speak from his seat, or from the clerk's desk. Selecting the latter position the speaker continued in an eloquent strain of bitter denunciation of Slavery and slaveholders, daring which a running fire was kept up against him by Southern gentlemen. 
THE MORMONS. 
The bill punishing polygamy in Utah, or as others term it, "The bill establishing polygamy in the Dis-trict of Columbia," passed the House to-day by a large majority. The first section begins thus: "That if any person or persons, being married, shall, during the life of the former husband or wife, marry another person in any Territory of the United States, or other place except the District of Columbia, over which Use United States possess exclusive jurisdiction, shall, on conviction thereof," &c. This, it is contended, es-tablishes, by implication, polygamy in Washington, and declares exclusive Congressional jurisdiction over the Territories; a question somewhat mooted in these days of popular sovereignty. When this pro-vision was read in the Senate, it created no little mer-riment. 
A PAYMASTER ROUGHLY HANDLED. 
The Senate had a spicy executive session to-day, during which Mr. WINSTON, newly appointed Pay-master of the United States Army, was roughly handled. His nomination was finally confirmed. 
THE TREATY WITH HONDURAS. The President sent to the Senate to-day the treaty ; just concluded with Honduras, on the same basis with that made with Nicaragua, and pending in the Sen-ate the transit clause eing the only difference. It is the intention of the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs to bring up Honduras for action first, then follow with the Nicaraguan Treaty, leav-ing Mexican matters until the last. This he deems the best policy, after consulting the friends of each I treaty. There is some hope of ratification of them all. 
THE TEXAS FRONTIER. 
In reporting the Military Academy bill yesterday, the Committee based its adverse action on the Senate amendment for the Texas Regiment, on the failure of the Secretary of War or the President to recommend it. This surprised Secretary FLOYD, as he had recommended it to each member of the Commit-tee to whom he had spoken on the subject, but orally only. Tins, it seems, the Committee did not regard as a recommendation, and to-day the Secretary addressed the Chairman a strong docu-ment, urging the passage of the bill as amended by the Senate. Mr. STANTON may move to recommit the ; bill, with a view to considering this letter, and re-verting the report. If the adverse report is in good faith, based on the failure of the Executive to recom-mend the appropriation, this letter of Secretary FLOYD must secure favorable action. 
Official letters received to-day from Gov. HOUSTON represent affairs on the Texas frontier as still much disturbed. 
The Indian Bureau declines acceding to Gov. HOUSTON'S proposition about the manner of negotiat-ing with Texas Indians. Gov. H. thinks these nego-tiations should be effected through Texas, in order that the tribes might realise the fact that Texas was a party in interest, and that her rights were to be re-spected. When they negotiate directly with the Federal Government, they regard Texas as a sepa-rate nation, and pay no attention to treaty stipula-tions. Gov. HOUSTON urges that all goods and pres-ents should reach the Indians through Texas chan-nels. Commissioner GREENWOOD unfortunately thinks differently. 
THE BOLTON CASE. 
The Supreme Court was occupied to-day with the great Bolton case, involving the title to Sacramento City, California. Hon. ROBT. J. WALK E a spoke for two hours in defence of the claim. The Government is represented by Attorney-General BLACK. The court-room was much crowded during the argument. 
THE NEW-YORK OFFICE-HOLDERS. 
Mr. COVODE'S Committee failed to report a resolu-tion to-day, asking that Mr. SCHELL be arraigned for contempt, in not furnishing a list of subscribers to the New-York hotel fund. Mr. BUTTERWORTH placed on record numerous extracts from Mr. HASKIN'S letters touching the Kansas policy of Mr. BUCHANAN, of which I have already given the pith. 	Q.
From Another Correspondent. 
WASHINGTON, Thursday, Feb. 5. 
THE PACIFIC RAILROAD. 
The Pacific Railroad Committee met this morn-ing, and occupied two hours in perfecting a bill. It I about half finished the work, and will meet to-morrow morning to complete it. The Committee voted to strike out the clause terminating the route at the head of navigation on the Sacramento River, thus adding three hundred miles of road to the proposed route. This may kill the bill, as it makes it the long-est route of all those proposed. An attempt will be made to reconsider it to-morrow. 
THE PRESIDENT'S PROTEST. 
The Judiciary Committee have adopted HICKMAN'S report on the President's Protest, and authorize him to report. The report is adverse to the President. 
P. 
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE. 
THE CONVENTION TO BE HELD AT CHARLESTON—THE HOSPITALITIES OF THE CITY PLEDGED—MESSRS. VALLANDIGHAM AND ASHMORE OP-POSE A CHANGE OF PLACE FOR HOLDING THE CONVENTION. 
WASHINGTON, Thursday, April 5. 
The Democratic National Committee met this morning. Twenty-three States were represented, GEORGE A. CALDWELL, of Kentucky, was chosen Chair-man pro tempore, in the absence of Judge SMALLEY, and C. L. VALLANDIGHAM, Secretary. It was unani-mously resolved that it is inexpedient, under existing circumstances, to change the place for holding the Democratic Convention from Charleston to any other place. 
Previous to action on the resolution, Mr. VAL-LANDIGHAM slated the reasons for the call, which originated mainly in the complaints regarding the impositions which it was rumored would be prac-ticed in Charleston concerning accommodations for visiters. He had received numerous letters on this subject. Gentlemen of Baltimore, Philadelphia, Richmond, St. Louis and Louisville, had presented inducements for changing the place of meeting to these cities. It might be stated that gentlemen of Charleston would, as far as they could, extend their hospitalities to delegates. 
Mr. ASHMORE, of South Carolina, stated to the Com-mittee that he had appeared at the summons of the Secretary, but did not regard himself a member of the Committee. He had met the Executive Commit tee at its first meeting as the substitute of Hon. B. H. WILSON, the member of said Committee from South Carolina, as expressed in his letter, only for the pur-pose of appointing the time when the Conven-tion will meet in Charleston. He therefore re-garded himself as limited to the single act o fixing the time, which had been done, and not regarding himself as authorized to act, should de-cline voting or participating further than to say, as a matter of information, that he had received many let-ters from distinguished gentlemen in Charleston, of the Convention party, who assured him that the hos-pitalities of that party would be extended to the full-est extent of their ability to accommodate visitors and delegates. He was frank to say, in his opinion, nothing need be expected from the Anti-Convention party. As to the change, he hoped no effort would be made to effect one. He did not believe the Commit-tee had the power to make any, and if it were so, it would have a very deleterious and injurious effect upon the friends of the Convention in South Carolina, who, he thought, were unanimous in opposing the change. He had been informed by letters that many of the parties would charge only three dollars per diem, but yesterday he had received private letters, saying that certain houses had been fitted up for en-tertainment, at five and six dollars per diem, includ-ing lodging and bedding. The landlords of the city claimed the nigh price of provisions as an excuse for these changes. He should not discuss this question, however, and as he should decline voting on any of the propositions before the Committee, would with-draw. 
The Committee adjourned to meet at Charles-ton on the 21st, at 10 o'clock, in the Grand Lodge of the Masonic Hall, which has been tendered and ac-cepted for the use of the Committee. 
From the Associated Press. 
WASHINGTON, Thursday, April 5. 
The President to-day transmitted to the Senate, for ratification, the recently concluded treaty of com-merce and friendship with Hunduras, which was re-tared to the Committee on Foreign Relations. Al-though the Nicaraguan and Mexican treaties have received no attention from the Senate for weeks past, it is the opinion of some Senators that it is probable they will both he revived. 
Mr. COLFAX to-day reported, from the Post-office Committee, amendments to the Senate Atlantic Tele-graph bill reducing the subsidy and the maximum charge for private messages.
SENATE. 
WASHINGTON, Thursday, April 5. 
Mr. FOSTER, of Connecticut, (Rep.,) presented nineteen memorials from citizens of Connecticut, praying for the abolition of spirit rations In the Navy. Referred. 
Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts, (Rep.,) intro-duced a resolution, which was referred, re-questing the Committee on Military Affairs to in-quire if the War Department, or any of its offi-cers, have entered into a contract during the last two years for iron for public buildings since the public ad-vertisement for the same, the amount furnished and for the prices paid and by what authority the contract was made ; also, a similar inquiry as to shot and shells, and iron gun carriages ; and author-izing the Committee to send for persons and papers. Laid over. 
Mr. CLAY, of Alabama, (Dem.,) from the Committee on Commerce, reported the House joint resolution constituting Macon, Georgia, a port of entry for the time being, and. for other purposes, and it was passed. 
Mr. CHESNUT, of South Carolina, (Dem.,) moved to take up and then to postpone till Monday next, Mr. DAVIS' Territorial resolutions. Agreed to. 
The bill for the relief of Capt. SHUBRICK was passed. 
On motion of Mr. MASON, of Virginia, (Dem.,) the joint resolution providing for the reception of the Japanese Embassy was taken up and parsed. On motion of Mr. GREEN, of Missouri, (Dem ,) the ; bill concerning the Courts in the Territories was taken up and passed. It provides that the jurisdic-tion of the Probate Court shall not be less than $2,000, with the right of appeal in all cases. 
The Indian Appropriation bill then came up. 
Mr. LATHAM, of California, (Dem.,) moved an amendment, the effect of which was to allow Califor-nia to take care of the Indians on its own border, and thus reduce the expense to the Government much less than now. He said it was not often that Califor-nia came to this floor preaching economy, but when she did, she thought she was entitled to a hearing. If the amendment passes, the Indians will be better cared for and maintained than by the General Gov-ernment, and at a reduced expense.
Pending the question, the Homestead bill came up. 
Mr. TRUMBULL, of Illinois, (Rep.,) hoped the friends of the Homestead bill would stand by it, and not let the Appropriation bill override it. 
Mr. WADE, of Ohio, (Rep.,) said he would not lay aside the bill for anything except a funeral. 
Mr. JOHNSON, of Arkansas, (Dem.,) said the Home-stead bill was an Abolition measure, and should not take precedence of the Indian Appropriation bill. 
The question of postponing the Homestead bill was not agreed to. Yeas, 25 ; nays, 30. 
Mr. FITCH'S amendment that the lands granted for homesteads shall be entered in al ernate quarter sec-tions and that the quarter sections remaining to the United States shall not be sold for less than double the minimum price of lands when sold, and that the provisions of the act shall be only applicable to land subject to private entry at the date of the passage of the bill, was not agreed to. 
Mr. BEOWN of Mississippi (Dem.,)—At heart I think this principle is right, but my constituents do not de-sire me to vote in its favor. If I was only giving the vote of ALFRED F. BROWN, I should record it in favor of this bill; but when I cast one of the votes be-longing to the State of Mississippi, I will cast it in accordance with the wishes of that State, and not according to my own. But, Sir, if the friends of that measure could be induced to accept such a proposition as I have made, and take that instead of the Homestead bill, I would take the hazard of settling with my constituents and vote for it. Now, Sir, what is it ? It is substantially, for all purposes, everything which the friends of either of these bills will secure. If the purpose be to benefit the set-tlers, my proposition is that he who settles on the land may remain, so long as he chooses, with the strong arm of his Government stretched over him, protecting him from harm everywhere. Can the settler ask for more ? My proposition removes the two years' litigation, and says to the settler, Go upon the land and stay as long as you choose, and when-ever you are ready, come and pay for it at the minimum price, whatever that may be. You will thus relieve the settler from that anxiety which he feels if be should fail to pay the money at the land office, lest some more fortunate man will come and pay the money, and take his land away, I care not what others may say, I tell you and the country that the bone and sinew of the country know that the preëmption system is rather the bane and curse of the squatter than a benefit. He has been decoyed by this public land policy, and expended his labor in rearing a little cot in the for-est, making a little improvement, and strug-gling against the difficulties that surround him, only to rind, after a year of toil, that he had attracted the eye of some speculator, or man of more money than himself. I am not ashamed to stand in this presence and say that, by every power vested in me as a Senator, I would protect these sons of honest toil. I did not listen to my friend from Texas (Mr. WIGFALL) with much pleasure yesterday, when he said poverty was a crime. No, Sir, poverty is no crime, it may lead to crime, but in itself it is virtue. There are more men on the list of poor men in this country who are honest and patriotic than there are on the list of millionaires. 
Mr. WIGFALL, of Texas, (Dem.)—I would like to know who you call poor. I stated distinctly yester- j day what I meant, and I desire not to be misunder-stood. It seems I have been, by the reports, I did not see them—I do not read the newspapers—never do. But a friend showed me one published in Baltimore—the Sun—and he was horrified at my remarks, I stated distinctly that labor was capital. I consider that which would bring money to any man capital—bones muscle and brains are capi-tal to a man—and if he chooses not to use them he is guilty of a crime, and it is an outrage on those men who do work, that the results of their labor, and en-terprise, and industry—that, the money they have made by the sweat of their faces—should be made to support pauperism, which is another name for vaga-bondism, and that for crime. All these bills that are introduced to provide for the poor are an insult and an imputation on the American people. I, myself. have been as poor as anybody. 
Mr. BROWN—I am not going to discuss phraseology with my friend ; I simply wanted to give him an op-portunity to explain. I mean what is called poor in common parlance, people who have not an abundance of this world's goods, and who may be considered by their neighbors as poor. There may be ten thousand such people to-day within sigh; of this Capitol, and perhaps twenty thousand. It may be all well enough for gentlemen who are born with silver spoons in their mouths like my friend from Alabama (Mr. CLAY.) not to care for the poor. But, Sir, I came from that class. I was one of them, struggling through the early years of my life for a Jiving. I recollect from whence I came, and I never hear a taunt thrown at that class of people without feeling as if I must speak in defence of them. Sir, they are the bone and sinew of your land—the muscle of your army and navy. When you want soldiers to fight, you da not get them from Fifth-avenue, But when you want msn to stand in I the line and face the enemies of the country, you take them from that class of people to whom I have alluded. These are the men who will settle in one hundred and sixty acres, the men who have settled my own State and the State from which the Senator comes—Texas. 
Mr. WIGFALL thought the Senator was assailing his own State, and inquired who were the men that formed the Mississippi Regiment in the late war ? They were men who owned the land, men of sub-stance, free men, who bought their land and paid for it—men who never begged or stole—respectable, de-cent men, who would not go upon one hundred and sixty acres of land. There are no men in Texas who have received donations, and they have no paupers there ; but men have paid for what they own. 
Mr. BROWN—I am obliged to my friend for defending Mississippians against any assault of mine. But I know what belongs to the honor of my own State, and it does not sound very kind for the Senator to tell me I have made an assault on my own State. They have never charged me with being derelict, and it does not belong to the Senators from other States to charge me with being unfaithful. I have held the lan-guage on other occasions, and have been twice re-turned to this body and twice to the House of Repre-sentatives I doubt whether they will thank the Sena-tor from Texas for the views which he offers. I have said that the men of bone, muscle and brains are most-ly confined to one hundred and sixty acres of land. I know where the Graduation bill came from—it came from Alabama. That reduced the land in Alabama and Missouri to 12 ½ cents per acre, and I appeal to Senators whether the men who bought homes under that bill at 12 ½ cents per acre were not as patriotic, and have not as much muscle, bone and brains as those who have paid $1 25 per acre for homes. 
Mr. GREEN said he had no right to call this a Home-stead bill. But homestead is the popular cry. Who has the power to make a homestead ? Not a Federal Government, and all this talk about a homestead is a nonentity and on absurdity. The first moment the title passes out of the Federal Government it is sub-ject to State Governments, and I ask my friend—my particular friend—from Tennessee, (Mr. JOHNSON,) when be is talking about making a homestead, how long does it remain one ? Just so long as the title remains under the United States. But the moment it passes out he is a serf. The title is subject to State law then, and to judgment and execution. In Ten-nessee it may be sold the next day. Homestead ! If the States want homesteads let them make them. If Tennessee wants homesteads let them pass a home-stead law. 
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee, (Dem.)—We have. 
Mr. GREEN—Very well, then let them execute it. 
Mr. JOHNSON—We do it. 
Mr. GREEN—That is all very well with your own property and your own citizens, but outside of Tennes-see, in other States, what business have you to make a homestead ? The public land is to be administered by the General Government for the general benefit, to pay the debts of Government. And now we have men getting up and proposing to make a homestead, when, if they are lawyers or sensible men either, they know that the moment the title passes out from the United States he cannot hold it. If the State does not wish to exempt it, it will be sold the next day. Why call it homestead ? It is a misnomer. It is a misuse of terms. Homestead! Homestead! to se-cure a man and his family a home ! Nobody can do this without sovereign power. You would do much better to get the State Legislatures to act, and call on them to pass Homestead laws; but to call on Con-gress to pass Homestead laws, is a contradiction and an absurdity. You say if he keeps possession five years he has a homestead. I say we have that al-ready, by the Preëmption law. Does it secure a man, his wife and children, a home, against execution, creditors, money and influence? Not a word of it. There is nothing like a homestead connected with the whole thing. I will tell you what it is—first, it is pandering to a vitiated and corrupt pub-lic taste ; second, it is a demagogic system to court popularity ; third, it is a deception practiced on the public mind. I use these terms just as I wish to have them understood. I impute motives to no one, but these are the palpable facts resulting from this act. We now have the Preëmption law. It permits a man to go upon the land. I am willing to extend the time of payment to two years, and if a man cannot pay for the whole section, let him take a part—eighty or forty acres. Every man can surely secure a home of forty acres ; and permit me to remark that forty acres of land will support a family, and set them forth in the world as well as ordinary society can claim. Why give him land to make a homestead? Now, what do you understand by homestead ? A perpetual home, or a temporary home ? Which do you mean ? I want gentlemen to speak out. I ask the Senator from Tennessee, what do you mean by it? 
Mr. JOHNSON—Does the Senator want an answer ? 
Mr. GREEN—I do.
Mr. JOHNSON—I mean by a Homestead, first, to grant into his possession a certain amount of laud, so that a man can call it his own, so far as the Federal Government can protect it from forced sales or exe-cution. Then I proceed on the idea that, where the States have not done it, they will commence the policy where the Federal Government ceases. That they will, by State legislation, secure to each individual a certain amount of soil which he can call his own. You may call it Homestead, or any other name you choose, The advocates of this bill do not assume any power in the Federal Government to conflict with State author-ity. While the power remains in the Federal Gov-ernment, it is to give them a guarantee against any debt or contract made prior to the title passing from the Federal Government to him, I presume that the States in which this land lies will pursue the same Principle of justice ; that the popular sentiment that induced the Federal Government to adopt this policy here will induce the States to take it up and carry it out. 
Mr. GREEN—I understand. That discloses a won-derful amount of information. 
Mr. JOHNSOR—So far as securing homesteads are concerned, it is very hard for the Federal Government or a Slate to secure a citizen in the enjoyment of that which he never possessed. One thing is clear, no State or Federal Government can secure a man a home if he never possesses it. 
Mr. GREEN—He says the same policy and the same popular sentiment. Oh, there is a wonderful degree of information in that. I see the trees bend under the gushing wind. I see individuals bow to what they suppose to be popular sentiment. Sir, I will stand by the Constitution of my country against public senti-ment and stand up for justice even against the rush-ing wind. I will stand up for right even if popular sentiment is against it. 
Mr. JOHNSON—If I go with the pepular sentiment, I do not do it in contravention with the Constitution of the United States, I stand here to defend popular sentiment, but in conformity with the law. I believe the Homestead proposition to be right. I believe it to be Constitutional, and therefore I uphold popular sen-timent in accordance with these views. 
Mr. GREEN—I had no doubt he was conscientious in his remarks ; but the human mind is so constituted, and the moral convictions so tempered with pride and power, that when the idea of popular sentiment is brought to bear on them, it too frequently warps the one and sways the other. There can be no Home-stead made by Congress. There can be an ar-rangemant made for temporary occupancy, but to secure a home against State execution and State law is utterly impossible. It is beyond the powers of this Government, and in contra-vention of the express rights of the several States. Then, why fill it homestead? Why not call it, gift ? It is not homestead, and adopting that name only deceives the public, defrauds the pub-lic, and it is a cheat upon ourselves. To call it Home-stead perpetrates a fraud on the public. This meas-ure would strike at the prosperity of every State in this Union. It would strike down the whole railroad sys-tem, and It is an in justice to the soldiers of the Revo-lution, and of the war of 1812—to whom bounty land I warrants have been granted. For, it you pass this bill, the warrants will not be worth a dollar. Is it the object of the Government to tax the rich to build up the poor? This Government derives its power from the States, and is there in that grant any power to tax one portion for the benefit of another ? There is not, and however this Senate may vote, however public judgment may pronounce, truth will stand forever. This land is purchased by common treasure. What right has the Government to take this land and give it to the most worthless? It encourages neglect, idle-ness, laziness, and waste. The object of Government is protection. This plan would destroy all incentive to industry. At the end of five years these people would cry for a new division of land, and, perhaps, the Senator from Tennessee will say the public breeze demands another division. 
The Senate went into Executive Session on the Treaties. 
Adjourned. 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 
WASHINGTON, Thursday, April 5. 
Mr. SHERMAN, of Ohio, (Rep.,) from the Commit-tee on Ways and Means, reported the Post Office Ap-propriation bill. The House then resumed the consideration of the Anti-Polygamy bill. 
Mr. NELSON, of Tennessee, (American,) re-sumed his remarks in its support, expressing the hope that the passage would approach as near as possible to unanimity. He saw a manifest distinction between interfering with the rights of property and the right to de-clare criminal an act which is so declared by the law of God. The existence of the in-stitution of polygamy in Utah is an insult to the moral feelings of the whole population—an insult to the wives and daughters of gentlemen here, and those of their constituents. It was a reflection on our national character, that it should exist under the protection of American law. 
Mr. HOOPER, the Delegate from Utah—My remarks, Sir, on the bill now under consideration will be brief. However much my own feelings might prompt me to speak at length upon the subject now before the House, the propriety of doing so at this time is in my judgment questionable. Many gentlemen, knowing that gross calumnies have been circulated against my people, and taking a lively interest in their exposure, (for which I thank them,) have urged me to let all the facts be known in a speech or speeches upon this floor. Sir, when the time comes, and come it will, for events are even now shaping so as to bring it about, that my remarks ran be properly heard and weighed without the prejudice which unhappily prevails at present, these charges which have been so freely and unscrupulously made shall be met, and their falsehood made apparent to the whole country. Until then, Sir, I am content—to wait. In the mean-time, I can only appeal. Sir, to the dispassionate and the unprejudiced to think better of the one hundred thousand of their fellow-citizens in Utah, born upon the same soil, nurtured under the same institu-tions, and speaking the same tongue, than to suppose them capable of conspiring with one accord to perpetrate such offences as those which have been charged upon them by their enemies. Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention at present to discuss the peculiarities of the bill now under consideration, but I would respectfully ask, Sir, are gentlemen prepared to reap the consequences of its passage? Are we not just emerging from a difficulty with the very people against whom this bill is leveled, a difficulty which at one time threatened the country with civil war and all its attendant honors ? Sir, what was the condition of the people of Utah ? They suspected, and as they thought with good reason, the good faith of the inten-tions of their fellow-citizens towards them. These suspicions have been allayed, I rejoice to say, and all accounts lately received from my constituent? go to show that a better feeling exists towards the Govern-ment than has been known before for years The doubts existing in their minds in relation to their treatment have measurably subsided. But if this bill be passed, and if a measure is proposed for carrying it out, those doubts will be revived with increased force. The fires which blazed so fiercely when the fuel of persecution was heaped up, have now almost died out. The question presents itself now—not, Sir, for the consideration of one party, but for the repre-sentatives of the people of this country of all parties, of the whole country—are you prepared, gentle-men, again to enkindle those fires? Mr. Speaker, this important point is the only one which I desire now to make ; but, Sir, I think it is my duty not to hold back from speaking of another matter upon which, during this discussion, I have been exposed to censure. I have been reminded upon this floor, as the representative of the people of Utah Territory, that polygamy is there practiced, and I cannot but allude to the expressions of sentiment which have been made upon this floor in condemnation of that practice.
Mr. CLARKE, of Missouri, (Dem.,) interrupting—I desire to ask a question of the gentleman from Utah, not to embarrass him, but perhaps for his benefit, The question is this : What number of people in your Territory have more than one wife ? And further, whether a second marriage is proposed or command-ed by authority of your church, and whether that in-junction is binding upon your people ? 
Mr. HOOPER—I will reply to the gentleman from Missouri, by remarking in the first place that practi-cally I am not a polygamist, but the accounts which have been received here of the abuses of polygamy in the Territory must have proceeded from its enemies. In the second place, from my observation during a ten years' residence in Utah, I could say that not over one-half of the population of Utah are poly-gamists, and probably not over one-half that number have more than two wives. [Laughter.] I do not understand that there is any obligation in any manner upon any one to have a number of wives unless he prefer it, I know of no Church regu-lation whereby a man is compelled to become a polygsmist, and I know of no Church regulation whereby any woman is compelled to marry a man if it is not in accordance with her free will. Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by knowing there are several gentlemen upon this floor who have been acquainted with me for the last twenty years, long prior to my identification with the people of Utah, and who will say that they know me personal-ly to be incapable of deceit or dissimulation. I beg them all, therefore, to hear me say, upon my honor as a gentlemen, that, the passage of this bill will not be unacceptable to extreme advocates of polygamy in Utah, It will enable them to call to their aid ail those who now hesitate to defend polygamy as an in-stitution, and unite them all in opposition to this un-just attempt of the General Government to put it down by force. 
The House voted on and rejected Mr. BRANCH'S substitute—47 against 151. 
The House next voted on Mr. MCCLERNAND'S sub-stitute to repeal the law organizing Utah, and divid-ing the Territory between Jefferson and Nevada, for which he proposed a temporary government. Re-jected—35 against 159. 
The House tabled the preamble to the bill, which was passed with verbal amendments—149 against 60, as follows : 
YEAS—Messrs. Adams of Massachusetts, Adams of Kentucky, Adrain, Aldrich, Alley, Anderson of Mis-souri, Anderson of Kentucky, Ashley, Babbitt, Barr, Beale, Bingham, Blair, Blake, Boteler, Brabson, Bray-ton, Briggs, Bristow, Buffington, Burlingame, Burnett, Burroughs, Butterfield, Campbell, Carey, Carter, Case, Clark of New-York, Clark of Missouri, Cobb, Clark B. Cochrane, John Cochrane, Colfax, Conkling, Covode, Craig of Missouri, Curtis, Davis of Maryland, Dawes, Delano, Dimmick, Duell, Dunn, Edgerton, Edwards, Eliot, Ely, Etheridge, Farnsworth, Fenton, Ferry, Fos-ter, Frank, French, Garnett, Gilmer, Graham, Grow, Gurley, Hale, Hall, Harris of Maryland, Harris of Vir-ginia, Helmick, Hickman, Hill, Hoard, Hughes, Humphrey, Hutching, Jenkins, Junkin, Kellogg of Michigan, Kellogg of Illinois, Kenyon, Kil-gore, Killinger, Lamar, Larrabee, Leach of Michigan, Lee, Longnecker, Loomis, Lovejay, Mallory, Mars-ton, Martin of Virginia, Maynard, McKean, Mc-Knight, McPhearson, Millson, Millward, Moore of Ken-tucky, Moorhead, Merrill, Morris of Pennsylvania, Morse, Nelson, Nixon, Olin, Palmer, Porry, Pettit, Por-ter, Potter, Pryor, Quarles, Reagan, Rice, Robinson of Rhode Island, Royce, Schwartz, Scranton, Sherman, Sickles, Simms, Singleton, Smith of North Carolina, Spaulding, Spinner, Stanton, Stevens, Stevenson, Stew-art of Pennsylvania, Stokes, Stratton, Tappan Theaker, Tompkins, Train, Trimble, Underwood, Vance, Vandev-er, Van Wyck, Verree, Waldron, Walton, Washburn of Wisconsin, Washburne of Illinois, Washburn of Maine, Webster, Wells, Willson, Windom, Woodruff, Woodson.—149. 
NAYS—Messrs. Allen, Ashmore, Barksdale, Barrett, Bocock, Bonham, Bouligny, Boyce, Branch, Burch, Clopton, Cooper, Cox, Crawford, Curry, Dajarnette, Florence, Fouke, Gartrell, Hamilton, Hardeman, Has-kin, Hallon, Hawkins, Hindman, Holman, Houston, Howard, Jackson, Jones, Keitt, Logan, Love, Martin of Ohio, McClernand. McQueen, McRae, Miles, Mont-gomery, Moore of Alabama, Morris of Illinois. Niblack, Noell, Pendleton, Phelps, Pugh, Riggs, Robinson of Il-linois, Ruffin, Scott, Smith of Virginia, Stallworth, Stewart of Maryland, Stout, Taylor, Thayer, Thomas, Vallandigham, Whitely, Windom—60. 
Mr. SICKLES, of New-York, (Dem.,) rising to a ques-tion of privilege, Bald the House had passed a resolu-tion requiring Mr. WILLIAMSON to serve a notice on him, staring the grounds upon which the latter con-tests his seat. He had received from Mr. WILLIAM-SON a paper purporting to be a statement, but it was a mere repetition of the memorial of Mr. WILLIAMSON, heretofore presented. The House, he apprehended, required something more than a rehearsal of the memorial. He held the notice in his hand, and had prepared a specification of his objections to this, showing its inconsistencies, and the impossibility of his taking testimony on it. 
Mr. SICKLES' response was read, in which he says Mr. WILLIAMSON’S charges are without foundation and wholly untrue. He has no knowledge of any illegal vote cast for him, but on the contrary had been wrongfully defrauded of votes. He wished to call the attention of the House to the character of Mr. WIL-LIAMSON'S notice, before the matter was referred to the Committee oh Elections. 
Mr. SHERMAN objected, saying that this subject should be referred to the Committee on Elections. 
Mr. WASBURN, of Maine, (Rep ,) denied the right of Mr. SICKLES to sneak on the subject. 
The Speaker decided otherwise. 
Mr. WASHBURN appealed from the decision. 
Mr. SICKLES moved to lay the appeal on the table. Carried—95 against 77. 
Mr. SICKLES said : Mr. WILLIAMSON, after confessing here that he had proof of fraudulent votes for Mr. SICKLES, had in his own paper, the Weekly Dispatch, advertised for information or testimony to sustain his charge. Mr. WILLIAMSON'S notice on him had failed to point to one solitary illegal vote. He chal-lenged whatever scrutiny may be brought to bear on the election in his district. He did not want to meet a masked battery. He asked for an investigation of all the circumstances which transpired since the question was laid before the House. He wanted to know whether his right to a seat was to be tried on principle or in a manner unknown to the Constitu-tion, the laws and common justice. 
Mr. DAWES, of Massachusetts, (Rep.,) remarked that Mr. SICKLES came before the Committee on Elections this morning. It appearing that Mr. WIL-LIAMSON had not reached the City, the Committee, without objection from Mr. SICKLES, suggested that the whole matter be postponed till half-past 10 o'clock to-morrow. 
Mr. SICKLES said he proposed the matter be sent there now. 
Mr. DAWES—I have the floor, and don't wish to bandy words with the sitting members. He then said that Mr. SICKLES had indulged himself in vituper-ative remarks concerning the contestant, and had at-tached to his letter in reply to Mr. WILLIAMSON an ar-gument in his own behalf. 
The subject was referred to the Committee on Elections, 
The House went into the Committee of the Whole or the State of the Union. 
Mr. SHERMAN moved to take up the Tariff and Loan bill. 
Mr. BRANCH, of North Carolina, (Dem.) was against any alteration of the Tariff. The present bill yields sufficient revenue to meet the wants of the Govern-ment. 
Mr. SHERMAN sail he would not ask a vote on it for three weeks, On his motion, the various bills on the calendar were laid aside till the Tariff Loan bill was reached. 
Mr. LOVEJOY, of Illinois, (Rep.,)—The House has been occupied for several days in the discussion of polygamy. The Republican party, of which I am a member, stands pledged, ever since 1854, so far as Congress has the power, to exterminate the twin relies of barbarism. Slavery and polygamy in the Territories of the United States. Now, Sir, as we have administered a death-blow to one of those twins, I propose to pay my respects to the other twin. I want to see both strangled and go down together as they heartily deserve. 
Mr. COBB, of Alabama, (Dem.)—It is not in order under the rules, but I am willing to let him go on and talk about that other twin. 
Mr. LOVEJOY—I shall go on without the gentleman's leave, or anybody else's leave, individually. 
Mr. STANTON, of Ohio, (Rep.)—Does the Chair hold that the twin relics are in order. I think, under the new rules, the debate must be confined to the Tariff bill. I only raise the question because I am afraid if the general debate goes on, the real subject before us will be neglected. 
Mr. SHERMAN, of Ohio, (Rep,) said the discussion was open as broad as upon the President's Message, but the majority of the House might at any time limit the discussion to the subject matter. 
The Chairman, Mr. WASHBURN, of Maine, (Rep.,) decided that general debate was in order. 
Mr. LOVEJOY—I was about to say, when interrupted, that the question presented is, whether Slavery shall be extended beyond its present limits, as that is the only question over which we have exclusive jurisdic-tion ; but, Sir, when it is proposed to extend what is termed an institution, but what is not an institution, bot simply a practice, like polygamy, the question naturally arises, What is the nature, what the influ-ences, and what the elements of this practice, and what will they prove to be when extender! , if allowed to extend? I am aware that it has been stated on this floor that the morality of Slavery has been settled ; that its ethics are no longer to be discussed ; that they were settled by the Stagyrite of Greece, and have been reaffirmed and reestablished by the Stagyrite of Ohio, who portrayed it in gorgeous colors, like the hues which gather around the clouds of a Summer sunset. We were told that where slaveholding will pay there slaveholding will go. Precisely upon the same principle, where robbery or piracy will pay they will go, and where human flesh is cheaper than beeves cannibalism will go, because it will pay. Sir, than robberies, than piracy, than polygamy, slaveholding is worse—more criminal, more injurious to man, and conse-quently more offensive to God. Slaveholding has been justly designated as the sum of all crime. You put every crime that is perpetrated upon men into a moral crucible, and dissolve and combine them all, and the result of the amalgam is slaveholding. I am speaking in earnest, before God, and it is God's truth. It has the violence of robbery, the blood of piracy, the brutal lusts of polygamy all combined and concentrated in itself, with aggrava-tions that neither one of those crimes ever knew or dreamed of. Now, Mr. Chairman, the justification of Slavery is placed mainly on three grounds : the inferiority of the enslaved race, that the fact of enslaving men imparts Christianity and civilization to them, and the guarantees of the Con-stitution. We concede as a matter of fact the inferior-ity of the race, but does it follow that it is right to en-slave a man simply because he is inferior to you. Mr. Chairman, this is to me a most abhorrent doctrine. It would place the weak at the mercy of the strong. The theory is, that if a man is crippled, trip him up; if be is o! d and weak, strike him—he can't strike back ; if he is a child, deceive him. Why, Sir, this doctrine of the Democrats—and it is the doctrine of devils as well—would lead the strong to enslave the weak everywhere. It would justify the angels in enslaving man, and, in turn, it would justify the archangels in enslaving the angels. If carried out in the universe, it would ultimately transform Je-hovah himself into an infinite Juggernaut. 
Mr. LOVEJOY, who had commenced his remarks on the extreme left of the Republican side, had gradually advanced info the space in front of the Speaker's chair, and as he warmed in his subject he began to gesticulate with some vehemence. In the midst of the remark last reported he was interrupted by Mr. PRYOR, of Virginia, (Dem.,) who excitedly called him to order, at the same time advancing towards him, with fierce gesticulations. He was understood to say, prefacing the remark with some offensive adjectives, "Keep your own side, Sir ; you shall not come over here, shaking your fists in the face of gentlemen !" 
Great confusion ensued. Members began to rush towards the scene from all sides, some shouting order, and others denouncing LOVEJOY. 
Mr. PRYOR—I call him to order, Sir. He shall not shake his fists in our faces, Sir. It is bad enough to let him stand over there and talk his treason. 
Mr. BARKSDALE, of Mississippi, (Dem.,) who had been in his seat with a heavy cane in his hand, came forward with the crowd, shouting and flourishing the cane. The only words understood from him above the tin of the Chairman's gavel, were, "Keep his own side, the rascal." 
Mr. ADRAIN, of New-Jersey (Anti-Lecomption Dem.,) and other gentlemen, moved that the commit-tee rise, and some called the Sergeant-at-Arms. 
The Chairman would receive no motion till gentle-men resumed their seats. 
The crowd still increased and a collision seemed inevitable. 
Mr. Cox, of Ohio, (Dem.,) shouted—I rise to a point of order. The gentleman from Illinois is out of his seat. He has no right to leave his seat and come upon the Democratic side. 
Mr. LOVEJOY, standing firm, was understood to re-ply, "I will stand where I please."
He stood at this time on the Republican side, near the dividing aisle. 
Mr. PRYOR vociferated—Let him stand over there and talk. He shall not come upon this side. 
Mr. BABKSDALE continued to flourish his cane, sev-eral gentlemen around him and Mr. SINGLETON re-straining their violence. 
Mr. ADRAIN—To avoid all difficulty, I suggest the gentleman just speak from his side ; no one sup-poses he can be intimidated. 
Mr. PRTOR—Nobody wants to intimidate him. 
Mr. LOVEJOY—Nobody can intimidate me, Sir. Sit down, gentlemen, I am safe enough. 
MR. SINGLETON, of Mississippi, (Dem.,) approached, shaking his fists. 
Mr. BARR, of New-York, (Dem.,) and others, re-strained him. 
Mr. BURNETT forced his way into the midst of the circle around LOVEJOY, and shouted, "There is a rule which requires every gentleman to keep his seat while speaking. He can speak only from his own seat. He cannot, and he shall not, cross this hall in a menacing manner towards us, as he has done. He must speak from his seat, and he shall do it. 
The Chairman appealed to gentlemen to enforce order, and said he would call the Sergeant-at-arms. 
The young man acting as deputy of the Sergeant-at-Arms approached with his silver mace. 
Mr. BURNETT—You may call your Sergeant-at-Arms, but he shall not do it. 
Mr. PHELPS, of Missouri, (Dem.,) turned back the mace-bearer with some remarks.
Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois, vociferated that his col-league should not commit a breach of the rules, but should have all his rights. 
The Speaker was called in to resume his seat, when the Chairman reported that the Committee roseowing to the disorder. 
Finally comparative quiet was restored. 
Mr. SHSRMAN said "We are good now." 
This was succeeded by a burst of laughter. 
The House then went into Committee of the Whole. 
Mr. LOVEJOY took the stand at the Clerk's desk and resumed his remarks. He spoke about Northern Christian women, who went to the South to, prevent the people there from returning to barbarism. 
Mr. SINGLETON said that he would not allow such insinuations upon Southern women to pass. If the member persisted in that course of remark, he (SIN-GLETON) would hold him personally accountable. 
Mr. LOVEJOY said that in the four millions of slaves there was not one legal husband or wife, father or child, and spoke about a Presbyterian elder down South having the gospel whipped into him with the broadside of a handsaw, and of a young girl in this city being whipped until the blood came out of her nostrils, and then sent to the garret to die. He had sworn to support the Constitution because he loved it, but he did not interpret it in the way Southerners did.
Mr. BONHAM, of South Carolina, (Dem.)—You vio-late it 
Mr. ASHMORE, of South Carolina, (Dem,)—And per-jure yourself. 
Mr. SINGLETON—And are a negro-thief into the bar-gain. 
Mr. BARKSDALE—I hold no parley with a perjured negro. 
Mr. LOVEJOY said, when DANIEL WEBSTER spoke of the imposition of Austria on Hungary, he remarked the earthquake and tornado have powers, and the thun-der has power, but greater than these was the power of public opinion ; and before this he proposed to arraign Austria. He (LOVEJOY) proposed to hold up to the retribution of public sentiment, slaveholding in all its atrocity and hideousness, just as gentlemen had here polygamy. Public sentiment will burn and scour out Slavery, and the proper way is by the action of the Slave States themselves. He had indorsed the Helper book because he wanted to do it. He did so without asking the gentleman from Missouri (CLARK) or anybody else. You shed the blood of my brother twenty years ago, and I am here free to speak my mind. The Republican Party would spring up in Kentucky, and gentlemen now here would find themselves displaced by more moderate, and if it were not offensive, he would add, more sensible men. He wanted to say in Charleston what he could say here. 
MR. BONHAM—You had better try it! 
Mr. LOVEJOY—I can go to England and there dis-cuss the question of Church and State, or any other British institution. But if I go into the Slave States and talk against Slavery, where is my protection ? 
Mr. MILES, of North Carolina, (Dem.,)—Can you go to England and Incite the laboring classes there to assassinate the Queen? 
Mr. LOVEJOY—I don't desire to do that. I claim the right to discuss Slavery everywhere under the stars and stripes. I claim it I demand it. 
Mr. BONHAM—We want you to assert it! 
Mr. LOVEJOY—When you call us small farmers and apply other epithets against the working people of the North, we don't harm you. If a mechanic from Pennsylvania were to go South and speak about the superiority of white labor he would be held morally responsible. You would strip him and scourge him by the hand of a slave, and perhaps tar and feather him. 
Mr. BARKSDALE—The meanest negro in the South is your superior! 
Cries of  "Order" from the Republican side. 
Mr. LOVEJOY, in speaking of JOHN BROWN, said he would not curse him. He would pour no execrations upon old JOHN BROWN. He condemned what he (BROWN) did. He disapproved of his act. He believed, however, that his purpose was a good one, and his motives honest and truthful. JOHN BROWN stood head and shoulders above any man here until he was strangled. Any law to enslave man was as an ar-rangement among pirates to distribute the spoils. By what, right do you of the South get together and enact laws that I or my child shall be your slave? Every slave has a right to run away in spite of your laws, and to fight himself away. Were he (LOVEJOY) a slave, and were it necessary to achieve his freedom, he would not hesitate to fill up the chasm and bridge it over with the carcases of the slain. He loved the South. 
A VOICE—We don't love you. 
Mr. LOVEJOY—So it was with the Saviour. They didn't love Him. [Laughter.] Gentlemen who talked of dissolving the Union could no more do it than they could stop the shining of the sun. Virginia, instead of clothing herself in sheep's gray, should clothe herself in sackcloth and ashes, on account of Slavery, and ought to drink the waters of bitterness. 
Mr. MARTIN, of, Virginia, (Dem.)—If you will come into Virginia, we will hang you higher than we did JOHN BROWN. 
Mr. LOVEJOY—No doubt about it. 
The Committee rose, and the House adjourned.