That Book Appropriation

Some few weeks ago, as our renders win recjllect, we, in repW to the Signnl of Liberty stBted ihat the Michigan delegalion, at two different times, voted againt the book approprialion. The Signal haa been harping upon this fubject for some time, nnd has promised to eet the mot ter righl with its readers in regard to the Michigan delecration, ïf we would fhow thal sad delegation did vote against the appropriation. The editors of the Signal appeared unwilüng to believe the .tatt-ment which we made - they therefore wxotf to an abolition editor in Boston, to get the facts. Believing that our statements were true, we have taken ibe pains to gel a copy of the journal of the House, in order to put the mntiet bevond disptiic. And here wc would remarle, tliat ifthe the editors of the Signa!, lied applicd to the Journals, instead of the Boston editor, they would have been very apt to have oblained a nv.ich more authentic statement. On the Hth of June Mr. Winthrop, n vvhig meraber from M8 achusetts, brought forvard his resolution requiring the Clerk of the House to furnish members with certain books. On pnere 1U3 we find the following proceedings recorded : The snid resolution was read; when Mr. Winthrop moved the previm6 question, hich was seconded and the main question was ordpred; hen A moiion was made, by Mr. Cave Ji'hnFODj thal the taid resolution be laid on the iable. And the question being put, t. t j i i ? Yeaa 64 il was decided in the negative ryuvs , t ■ The ñames of each rhember ore recorded es they voted, I ut we have not room, nor do we deern t necessary, to copy them. Suffice jt to saVt that ihe names of Robert M'CelJand, Jnmes B. Hunt, snd Lurius Lynn, are TecorJfd in tho affirmaïive. The Edilors of lhe Sisnal are probably sufficiently acquaint ed with parlamentary rulee to know that if a inotion to lay on the tnble prevaüs, it íb equivalent to a dofeatof tlie bill or reeolution. (as the case maybe.) under consideraron; and and more especially is ihis the case near the close of a sossion. Politically the vote on Johnson' a motion etands thus:Dem. Whig. Yeas, 53 6 Nays, 49 62 'Tiie main qucstion was then pnf, viz: wil the House ngrpe to enid resolutinii AnJ decided in the affirmolive." Upon this question the yeas and nay6 were not taken, but as our delcgaf un votcd right on all molion? relative to the subject, t is no more than fair to Euppose that they '6tood up' righi on this occasion. The Journal thus continúes: "A motion was then made by Mr. Winthrop that the vote upon ihe passage of the rreoJution be reconsidered, and Mr. YVinthrop moved the previoiiB qurstion upon 6nid motion, vvhich wne eeconded - and the ma in question was ordered and pur, viz: Slial! the said vo!e be reconsidered? And decided in Ihe negative. yeas, 07, naye 105." 1 bis motion was mnde to prevent further nclion, and to cut offall debate, upon the subject. Our delegatton all voted in the nega tive. The división of partics was aóout the eame as upon the firet vote. From this il will be seen that the resolulion was introduced by o wlug, and carried through by a ma jority of Wliigr vol es. Uut if onv thing were wanting to show the uttor duplicity of the Whige in this matter, we have it in the following, which may be found on page 1129:A motion was ronoV by Mr. Houston lint (he rtilcsbe 6ii?pondc(l, to enable hit ío present the ?b!lovnr resulution. Resolved, Tltut in lliepnrchnpp of books for monibiTS of Congress, by the Clurknf ;he Hou.-p, in pnrsunnce tf a resótulion ndopied on the 14! h instnn', nid Clerk is hfieby direcle.: t p've no inore for ihosn poblishüd by Gafes ond Seatun, in proportioi) to tlio nmoiint f printed mitlcr, ilian lie iiavsto Bluir und Ri ves for the books pubüs-Iifd by lifin. And thequeötiüii beinjj put, shall the rules be kuí pended? It was decided in the negativo, vena 99, naya (56. Giiles and Seaton r-re Whigs--, orxl Blair and Rives Demní-rot?. The ibove was n party vo'e - the whigs voting that more inight be paid to the Whig primers thnn to the lemcratic printers, Cor the same amotnit of matter. And wliero wore those Abulition pets - Adam?, Giddings, k.c? Voling wilh the Whigf, every timf, .ror this most outrageous nppropriation, as tho Signal dechires ii to be. We hope the Sicnal will now fnlfil its prom ise and set the matter right with is readers. Lel t hem know that but six WJljgf could be found in Conpress to oppose the appropñaDon - thaL the whole party i that body voted for Javishinp tle people's money pon Whip editor? - a.ul thnt the Michigantion voted right trom first to last. - Michigan Argvs. The Whigsry to abolish slavery, and to this end endeavor to prevent the extensión of its dominion; the liberty men propose to abolish slavery, while the legitímate efiects of iheir efïbrt is to extend the slave territory. Tbis statement is more m accordance with facts, as reflecting people are beginning to see. - Hamp. Gazette. When and wheredid "the Whigs" ever "try to abolish siavery?" Was it in the District of Columbia, where they established a pólice at the expense of the U. States to take up slaves? Wasit in Florida, where aleading Whig mported Cuba bloodhounds to catch the free negroes among the Seminóles? Was it in New Jersey, a Whig State, where a Whig courthasjust reversed the construction of the Bill ofRights, by which slavery was supposed to be abolished in Massochuspits? Was it in New York, where a Whig government refused to admit citizens of color to the right of sufFrage? - Was itin Connecticut, where slavery still exists, and a Whig legislature has repeatedly refuse to abolish il? Was it in Massachusetts, where a legislature so strongly Whig, that in the Senate there was not one opposition vote, refused to pass a law prohibiting our own citizens from holding slaves? Teil us where? -