Cherokee Phoenix


Published June, 19, 1830

Page 2 Column 4a-5b



Tuesday May 25.



House having, on motion of Mr. BELL, postponed the intervening orders, resumed the bill of the Senate, providing for the removal of the Indians west of the Mississippi when

Mr. HEMPHILL rose, and moved that the bill be recommitted to the Committee of the whole House, with instructions to amend the same in the manner proposed last evening by Mr. H.

Mr. BELL was decidedly opposed to the re-commitment, and deprecated re-opening the general discussion of the bill, which must grow out of the motion. Full opportunity had been given, he said, for debating the measure ' everyone must have come to the conclusion, that the adoption of the amendment would be rejection of the bill. He opposed the amendment on various grounds, asserting that no three living men could perform the duties proposed by the amendment, in twenty-four months, as was required- and was proceeding with his argument; when

A message was received from the Senate, announcing that it was now sitting as a Court of Impeachment, and was ready to receive the House of Representatives for the purpose of having the plea and answer of James H. Peck, in answer to the article of Impeachment preferred by the House.

On motion of Mr. STORRS of New York, the House then resolved itself into a Committee of the whole, Mr. P. P. BARBOUR being called to the Chair, and proceeded to the Senate Chamber, and, after being absent two hours and a half, returned, and

The SPEAKER having resumed the Chair, the House proceeded to the business which had been suspended.

Mr. BELL made a few additional remarks against the re-commitment of the bill, and concluded by moving the previous question, (the effect of which, if sustained, would be to put aside the motion to re-commit, and take the question of the passage of the bill.)

Mr. VINTON moved a call of the House, which was ordered- ayes 86, noes 76; and

The roll being accordingly called over, and 186 members answering,

A motion was made to suspend further proceedings in the call, on which the yeas were demanded and ordered, and being taken, the call was suspended. 110-85.

Mr. PEARCE then moved that the House adjourn; alledging (sic) as his reason, that a member was absent who was known to be in the City. On the motion for adjournment the yeas and nays were required and taken, and the motion was negatived. --Ayes, 19, Noes 177.

[While the yeas and nays were calling, the absent member returned to the House.]

Tellers were then appointed to count the House, with a view to ascertain whether the motion for the previous question was seconded, when reported 96 in favor of seconding the motion, and 96 against it. The Chair voted with the affirmative, and the previous question was ordered.

Mr. SUTHERLAND inquired of the Chair whether it was competent for the presiding officer to give a casting vote on seconding a motion? which the SPEAKER replied to in the affirmative.

Mr. EVERETT of Massachusetts, inquired whether every member present was not bound by the rules to vote on every question, [it being obvious that all the members in the House had not voted on the division just taken.]

The previous question, 'Shall the main question be now put?' was then put, and decided in the negative--yeas 98--noes 99.

So the House decided that the main question should not now be put, and the effect of this decision, according to the rules of the House, was, to remove the bill from before the House for the day.


Wednesday May 26

The House resumed the consideration of the bill to provide for the removal of the Indian tribes west of the Mississippi- the motion of Mr. HEMPHILL to re-commit the bill, still pending--

Mr. GILMORE of Pa. made a remark or two, expressive of his approbation of the bill, and read a letter from the late Mayor of Pittsburg (sic), commending the report of the Committee of this House on Indian Affairs. Mr. G. then moved the previous question.

Mr. CONDICT moved a call of the House, and the yeas and nays being required by Mr. BURGES, the motion for a call was carried 134 to 57.

The roll was accordingly called, and it appeared that two members, (Messrs. Ford and Ramsay) were absent from the House.

Mr. MILLER stated that his colleague, Mr. RAMSAY, was indisposed.

On motion of Mr. EVERETT, it was ordered that the Sergeant at Arms notify the absent members to attend, and that the House, in the meantime, suspend business.

In a short time, Mr. FORD came in, and after waiting nearly an hour Mr. STEREGERE stated that the messenger sent to Mr. RAMSAY's lodgings and returned, and brought word that he was not there.

Mr. LUMPKIN moved that Mr. RAMSAY be excused from attending, and that the House resume its proceedings.

Mr. BURGES demanded the yeas and nays on this motion.

Mr. MILLER then came in, and said he was obliged to state to the House, that Mr. RAMSAY could not be found.

Mr. WAYNE said it would be unprecedented, if a member who, it was stated, was sick, should not be excused. Ought the House to remain longer idle, after suspending its business nearly an hour, because of the anxiety of gentlemen to get an individual member here, who was said too to be sick?- He thought if the member was sick as stated, tenderness to his family ought to prevent his friends from urging his attendance.

Mr. BELL hoped the friends of the bill would wait a short time longer for the arrival of the absent member, as gentlemen opposed to the bill desired it-so the question when decided by the full voice of the House. While Mr. B. was speaking

Mr. RAMSAY entered the Hall, and the House proceeded to business.

Tellers were then appointed to ascertain the sense of the House on seconding the previous question, and on counting the members, reported 98 for and 96 against it. So the motion was seconded.

The previous question, i.e. 'Shall the main question now be put?' was then put and decided in the affirmative- Yeas 101 Nays 97.

So the house determined that the main question should now be put.

The question, 'Shall the bill pass?' was accordingly put, and decided in the affirmative-yeas 102 and nays 97.

So the bill was passed and ordered to be returned to the Senate for concurrence in the amendments.



Wednesday, May 26

The amendments from the House of Representatives to the bill 'to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of the States or Territories, and for their removal west of the river Mississippi' were received, and being read-

Mr. CLAYTON moved that they be postponed until to-morrow; which motion was rejected, Yeas 19, Nays 24.

Yeas- Messrs. Barnard, Barton, Bell, Burnet, Chambers, Chase, Clayton, Foot, Frelinghuysen, Johnston, Knight, Naudain, Robbins, Ruggles, Seymour, Silsbee, Sprague, Webster, Willey- 19.

NAYS- Messrs. Adams, Benton, Bibb, Brown, Dickerson, Dudley, Ellis, Forsyth, Grundy, Hayne, Hendricks, Iredell, Kane, King, Livingston, M'Kinley, Rowan, Sanford, Smith of Md. Smith of S. Carolina, Troup, Tyler, White, Woodbury--24

The first amendment being concurred in.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN moved to amend the second amendment by inserting at the end thereof 'and that until they shall choose to remove, the said tribes be protected from all State encroachments according to the provisions of such treaties.'

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN moved to amend his motion, by striking out the word 'State' which was disagreed to be yeas 18, noes 25.

The question recurring on agreeing to the amendment as originally proposed by Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, was rejected. Yeas 17, Nays 26.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN moved to insert at the end of the 2d amendment of the House of Representatives, 'and that all such Tribes be protected according to the provisions of said Treaties, until they shall choose to remove'- which was rejected--Yeas 18 Nays 24.

On motion of Mr. SPRAGUE, to insert at the end of the said second amendment,'but such treaties shall be executed and fulfilled according to the true intent and meaning thereof'--it was rejected Yeas 18, Nays 24.

On motion of Mr. CLAYTON to insert at the end of the said second amendment, 'Provide also, that the provisions of this act shall extend only to the Indians residing within the State of Georgia' it was rejected by the same vote.

Yeas--18--Nays 24.

So it was.

Resolved, that the Senate concur in the said amendments of the House of Representatives.