he reviewed his decision, and decided that, in conformity to the previous practice of the House, the laying the appeal on the table did not carry with it the whole subject; and he therefore stated hat the question now before the House was upon the motion of Mr. Holleman that the appeal of Mr. Petrikin do lie on the table.

MARCH 9, 1840.

Mr. Smith, of Vermont, in pursuance of notice heretofore given, moved for leave to introduce a bill to repeal a part of the second section of an act to alter and amend the several acts imposing duties on imports; and, debate arising, the Speaker decided that all propositions giving rise to debate to-day, while resolutions are being called for, must lie over, under the rule.

MARCH 10, 1840.

The House resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee of Elections on the New Jersey election.

The questions pending on the 5th instant,

were

On Mr. Fillmore's proposition to recommit; On Mr. Petrikin's proposition to amend Mr. Fillmore's proposition; and

On Mr. Petrikin's motion for the previous question.

The previous question being pending, Mr. Petrikin modified his amendment, by inserting therein after the word that, where it occurs the first time these words, viz: "prima facie, upon the evidence in possession of the committee "

Mr. Lincoln raised the question-Is it in order to modify the amendment, pending the motion for the previous question?

The Speaker decided it was in order.

From this decision Mr. Lincoln took an appeal ; when

Mr. Petrikin withdrew the modification.

MARCH 24, 1840

In pursuance of notice heretofore given, Mr. Rariden asked leave to introduce a bill for the continuation of the Cumberland road in the States of Ohio, Indianna, and Illinois.

Mr. Dromgoole objected to the putting the question on the motion for leave at this time, on the ground that he wished to debate it.

The Speaker decided that a motion for leave to introduce a bill on a day set apart by the rules for the reception of resolutions, must be subject to the restrictions and limitations contained in the rule in regard to resolutions. The rule provides that resolutions which shall give rise to debate shall lie over for discussion, under the rules; and therefore it was, he decided that the motion for leave, if objected to, and debate arising thereon, must lie over, as in the case of resolutions.

Mr. Rariden appealed; and subsequently, on the 6th of April, the decision of the Chair was sustained.

APRIL 27, 1840.

During a call of the House, a motion was made that the House take a recess.

A question was raised whether, pending a call, it is in order to take a recess?

The Speaker decided that it was not in order to take a recess pending a call, unless it were by unanimous consent of those present.

From this decision Mr. Holleman appealed; and on the question being put, the decision of the Chair was affirmed.

MAY 20, 1840.

Mr. Crary, from the Committee on the Public Lands, to which was referred the bill from the Senate (No. 12) entitled "An act supplemental to the act entitled 'An act to grant pre-emption rights to settlers on the public lands,' approved June 22, 1838," reported the same without amendment, with a recommendation that the said bill do not pass.

A motion was made by Mr. White, of Kentucky, that the said bill be committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

A mo ion was made by Mr. Lewis Williams, that the said bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

The previous question was moved; when

The Speaker stated, and so decided, that, if the previous question were sustained, the main question would be on the commitment of the bill.

From this decision Mr. Casey took an appeal to the House: when

On the next day the Speaker reviewed this decision, and decided, that if the previous question

were sustained, the question would be upon or dering the bill to be read a third time.

MAY 27, 1840.

A motion was made by Mr. Alford that the House do reconsider the vote of yesterday on the passage of the bill from the Senate (No. 12) entitled "An act supplemental to the act entitled An act to grant pre-empton rights to settlers on the public lands,' approved June 22, 1838."

Mr. Jameson stated that he understood that the bill had been taken by the Clerk to the Senate, in which House it originated, and was, consequently, now beyond the control of this House; and, therefore, the motion to reconsider could not be entertained.

The Speaker decided that the motion to consider was in order, under the 50th rule, which provided that," when a motion has been once made and carried in the affirmative or negative, it shall be in order for any member of the majority to move for the reconsideration thereof on the same or the succeeding day."

From this decision Mr. Petrikin took an appeal to the House.

The previous question was moved by Mr. Wil. liam Cost Johnson, demanded, and put, viz: Shall the main question be now put?

And carried in the affirmative.

The main question was then put, viz: That the decision of the Chair do stand as the judgment of the House;

And passed in the affirmative.

A question was raised whether, pending a call, it is in order to take a recess?

The Speaker decided that it was not in order to take a recess pending a call, unless it were by una. nimous consent of those present.

From this decision Mr. Holleman appealed; and on the question being put, the decision of the Chair was affirmed.

MAY 20, 1840.

Mr. Crary, from the Committee on the Public Lands, to which was referred the bill from the Senate (No. 12) entitled "An act supplemental to the act entitled 'An act to grant pre-emption rights to settlers on the public lands,' approved June 22, 1838," reported the same without amendment, with a recommendation that the said bill do not pass.

A motion was made by Mr. White, of Ken. tucky, that the said bill be committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

A moion was made by Mr. Lewis Williams, that the said bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

The previous question was moved; when

The Speaker stated, and so decided, that, if the previous question were sustained, the main question would be on the commitment of the bill.

From this decision Mr. Casey took an appeal to the House: when

On the next day the Speaker reviewed this deci. sion, and decided, that if the previous question