Mr. Shepley asked leave to offer the following Resolution,

Resolved, That this House out of respect for the conservators of “Beauty and Booty” on the plains of New Orleans, achieved by their unprecedented skill and bravery and under the able directions of the Illustrious and immortal Andrew Jackson, do now adjourn.1

The question being on granting leave to introduce the above Resolution. The yeas and nays were called for, and leave was granted, Yeas 63, Nays 19.2

The questing being on the adoption of the Resolution.

Mr. Minshall proposed to amend by adding the words “sine die” after adjourn (a laugh) which being out of order was dropped.

Mr Hardin supported the Resolution in a speech of great interest in which he maintained that the victory of New Orleans was a national triumph deserving of commemoration without any reference to mere politics: he held that the military glory and reputation of Gen. Jackson belonged to his country and ought to be cherished by every American: Mr. H. descanted in a strain of patriotic eloquence on the ingratitude of Republics to their great and illustrious men, and contended that the name of the Hero of New Orleans ought to be enrolled among the Washingtons, John Jays, Franklins, Henrys, Hamilton and Jeffersons of this country. Mr. H. concluded with hoping that the Resolution would be passed unanimously without a dissentient voice.

Mr Gridley was willing to vote for the Preamble, but not for the adjournment: he thought the business of the country ought to be attended to, he objected to the loss of time and the expense which this adjournment would occasion, his constituents would not forgive him if he should go for an adjournment under such circumstances.

Mr Henderson was opposed to the Resolution: he considered the battle of N. Orleans was a subject of regret and mourning, as having been fought when our ministers had concluded a peace.3 He was against adjourning as it would occasion an unnecessary loss of time and expense to the State.

Mr Bissell after passing a high compliment upon Mr. Hardin for his just and liberal views, proceeded to reply to the remarks of Messrs.[Messieurs] Henderson and Gridley. They, said Mr. B. object to the passage of this resolution on account of the delay of business which an adjournment will occasion. This (said Mr. B.) is a strange objection to come from such a quarter. These gentlemen had not on former occasions shown themselves so very reluctant to retard the progress of Legislative business. He reminded the House that but a few weeks ago when a great and important question was before the house, the gentleman from Putnam & the gentleman from McLean as well as most of those who usually act with them, absented themselves with the avowed object of leaving the House without a quorum, that its business might be not only obstructed but arrested altogether. They left the House almost an entire half day without a quorum. They went farther than this. They threatened the sergeant-at-arms with personal violence for attempting to execute the orders of the House; & after they had been relnctantly brought in by that officer, they, or some of them, burst through the windows and made their escape. All this was done it is openly acknowledged for the purpose of preventing the action of the House upon the business before it.4 These same gentlemen now object to half a day’s adjournment, on an extraordinary occasion, from an extreme unwillingness to delay for a single hour the business of the people. But (said Mr. B.) is this their real objection? He apprehended not. He believed that when the gentleman from Putnam (Mr. Henderson) said that the victory of New Orleans was a source of sorrow and regret to him

(Mr Henderson explained those were not his words: He had said that after peace had been concluded the loss of blood at that battle was a source of regret.)

Mr Bissell continued: very well; the gentleman shall have it as he pleases He is now understood. He says that the loss of blood at the battle of New Orleans by which alone the “beauty and booty” of that city were saved from the ravages of a monarch’s ruthless soldiers, is to him under the circumstances, a matter of regret. Mr. B. hesitated not to say that he who can give utterance to such sentiments would have no objections to celebrating the surrender of Hull or the defeat of Winchester:5 and had the result of the battle of New Orleans proved disastrous to our arms—had the “beauty and booty of that city fallen into the hands of British soldiers,” Mr. B. believed that the gentleman from Putnam would never have said of it, “it is a matter of regret.”

The gentleman from McLean says that his constituents will not forgive him if he delays the public business by going for this adjournment. If his constituents had forgiven him for delaying the public business on the occasion which he (Mr. B.) had before referred to, he believed they would readily forgive him for celebrating the anniversary of a great and glorious victory.

Mr Logan called for the previous question but withdrew it to allow Mr. Henderson an opportunity to explain.

Mr Henderson said he had a direct way of doing things which others might not have. Mr H. then went into an explanation of the sine die adventure:6 the gentleman from Monroe (Mr Bissell) had said some members were reluctantly brought back—Mr. H. could tell him that he (Mr. H) could not have been brought back when he chose to stay away. As to that session it would be recollected he always maintained that “the wrong passenger had been wakened up.” The gentleman said that he (Mr. H) would wish to commemorate the defeats of Hull and Winchester, he would have that gentleman to know that he (Mr H.) had been where he (Mr. B) would not like to be, he had been in the battles of his country and had had above a quart of bullets showered about his head in the battle field. Mr. H. would vote against the Resolution on every ground—there was not one word in it which he liked. (Mr. H. in the course of his remarks alluded to what he thought a hiss which he supposed had been directed against him—and observed that there were sometimes people who got into company where they ought not to be. The Speaker said he had never heard any such improper demonstration.)

Mr Kitchell hoped the Resolution would pass. He looked upon this day and the 4th of July as the two great days which ought ever to be celebrated, and observed as a political Sabbath. As to the battle of New Orleans being fought after peace was concluded, it should be remembered it was fought in defence only: it was the healing balm which covered our disgraces in the War. Mr. K. then renewed the call for the Previous question but withdrew it for

Mr Gridley who explained his course of the sine die day: he had been sick on that day: after having voted he went out by the window because the door was blocked up and he was prevented from going out, he only regretted that he had not forced the door open. As to the question, he thought it his duty not to adjourn, and he should act as his conscience directed him in the discharge of his duty

Mr Bissell would be extremely unwilling to do the gentleman from McLean (Mr. Gridley) any injustice. He had never heard before that he (Mr. G.) left the House on the occasion referred to, on account of his illness. He saw him rushing through a window while the vote was being taken on an important question, and this circumstance, in the absence of the explanation which now, for the first time, he (Mr. G.) had made to the House, justified the remark which he (Mr. B.) had made that the gentleman from McLean had shrank from his duty on that occasion.

The gentleman from Putnam (Mr. Henderson) said Mr. B. though he boasts much of his own courage, evidently entertains a very mean opinion of the bravery of others. Mr. B. should not on this occasion question the prowess and bravery of the chivalrous gentleman from Putnam, although he (Mr. B.) could not refrain from saying that when he heard a man boasting of his courage, he was very apt to conclude that he is not quite so courageous as he would be thought. He says he has been in places where I would not like to be; and where a “quart” of bullets were flying around his head at the same time. Mr. B. should by no means call the truth of this statement in question. All he should say was, that of the “quart” of bullets which flew a[r]ound his head, half of them at least, in Mr B’s. opinion, had lodged therein. (A laugh.)

Mr Woodson’s reasons for voting against the Resolution were the same as those given by the gentleman from McLean (Mr Gridley): he (Mr. W) would not vote for the whole resolution, he would vote for so much as was laudatory of Gen. Jackson. In relation to the subjects which had been discussed, the jumping out of the window, &c[etc].

The Speaker called Mr. Woodson to order, cries of “leave, leave go on &c.”

The Speaker said the gentleman would not go on out of order, unless by the consent of the majority.

The question was then put by the Speaker, “Shall the gentleman proceed out of order to answer the gentleman who was out of order.”

A division being called for, it was decided in the affirmative, Yeas 45. So the House decided to let Mr. Woodson go on.

Mr. English spoke in favor of the Resolution, and proceeded at some length to examine the reasons against it by his colleague.

Mr. Lincoln said that as that jumping scrape had become so celebrated it appeared necessary that he should say something about it.

The Speaker called Mr Lincoln to order.

Mr. Lincoln said that as to jumping, he should jump when he pleased and no one should hinder him. He thought this Resolution ought to pass. Mr. L. proceeded to advocate it, as a national subject, not on party grounds: he was proud of the victory of New Orleans, and the military fame of Gen. Jackson, though he could never find in his heart to support him as a politician. He had sat for 6 years in the Legislature, and this day had always been observed as a matter of course, with no view whatever to politics.

Mr. Munsell moved to amend by striking out that portion of the Resolution which proposed to adjourn.

Mr. West regretted much that this question had assumed a party shape; he would go for the Resolution, as it was only for a half a day, he would support it and he hoped it would pass.

Mr. Gillespie spoke in favor of the Resolution: he hoped it would pass, it was to commemorate an event which deserves the gratitude of the American people. It was never the policy of the Whig party to detract from the reputation of Gen. Jackson in the least degree: for his military exploits he deserved the gratitude of a grateful people. He would go for the Resolution as a matter of course. He went on to express his regret that a question of party had been raised on this subject.

Mr Munsell withdrew his amendment.

Mr Gridley expressed his willingness to go for the Resolution without an adjournment.

Mr Peck offered an amendment laudatory of Gen. Jackson as a Statesman.7

Mr Hardin said this mixing up of political questions with the Resolution did not suit him; He then moved to lay the Amendment on the table, whereupon Mr. Peck withdrew it.

The question being on the adoption of the Resolution, Mr Gridley moved a division of the question.

Mr Kitchell hoped Mr Peck would renew his amendment.

Mr. Murphy of Perry spoke in disapprobation of the party tumult which had been commenced by the gentleman of the Whig party and not by those of the democratic party.

Mr Henderson spoke briefly against both divisions of the Resolution: he never liked General Jackson in any capacity or in any manner, any-how. He should go against the whole Resolution.

Mr Threlkeld spoke briefly in support of the Resolution.

Mr Dollins called for the previous question which was ordered, and discussion ceased

The amendment of Mr Peck was then lost.8

The Original resolution was then carried first in part, then altogether, and the house adjourned.9