cording to Bound reason, 4ho principle, is correct; and—that—thc~question~would-na.w—bo - sinlccF" ded by our courts, oven if the law of nations had been silent on the subject. This not only is, bur ought to bo the principle of public law, Mr. Webster, in his letter to Mr. Vox oftlio3llh of April, tells the British Minister that Iho lino ofTroutier' which separates tho,Uniled States from lier Britannic Majesty’s North American provin ces “is long enough to divide the wholeof Europe into ihalves.” • / This is truo enough. Now, by admitting the doctrino of Valid to be incorrect and unfounded, on what consequences are wo forced? Jl beg Sen ators to consider this question. The lino which . separates us from the British posessions is a lino long enough to divide Kurope inlo halves. Hea ven knows I have no desire to see a rebellion in Canada, or the Canadians provinces annexed to itthe United States; but no event in tuturity is more certain than that thoso provinces are destined to be ultimately separated from the British empire. Let a civil war come, and let every MoNab who shall then have any command in- the British pos sessions along this long lino bo permitted to send ■a military expedition into the territory of the U. , States, war becgjncs inevitable. A British subject marauding'under the orders of his superior officer ■on this side of the lino Is seized in the very acf.— Weil, what is to be donpl 1 suppose we are to, wait until we can ascertain whether hie Govern ment chooses to recognise hia hostile or criminal act, before we can intact upon him the punishment which he deserves for violating our laws. If it should recognize his act, the jail dooris immedi ately td be thrown open; the offender, it may bo murderer, takes his night to Canada, and wo then must settle the question with the British Govern ment. Such is the doctrino advanced by the Bri tish Government and our own Secretary of State. This principle would, as I say, le id us inevita bly into war with that power. What can be done In a state of war? .. In that case, the laws of war provide that persons invading our territory who are captured, shall bo considered and treated as pri soners of war. But while the two countries con tinue at peace, a man taken in the flagrant act of invasion and violence cannot be made a prisoner of ' war. McLeod, hoWever, is not to be treated on this principle, and punished under our laws if ho be guilty, lest we should offend the majesty of England. The laws of New’York are to bo nulli- Jied, and the murderer is to run at large. But if the principle laid .down, by Vattel bo ■sound and Jtrue, all difficulty at once vanishes.— If such an offender be caught in the perpetration of acriminal act, he is then punished for his crime. Let him bo tried for it at least, and then, if there are any mitigating circumstances in his case, for the sake of good neighborhood let him escape.— There will then bo no danger of war from this cause. . Let me suppose a case. Suppose Colonel Allen McNab should take n into Ins head that there ex ists in {he United States a conspiracy against the J British Government, and' should believe that he . : j : 'Opuld jdaai, 2 !lllf ■saw,a.“a-a-- I 'r W-‘. --;■>>’■■ »- 'jvr. ’■'X 'tSfecfttjartjr, 1 /conies over the line, and seizes and robs the mail; but in the act he is overpowered and arrested, and _ lie is indicted before a criminal cou rt of the, Ujilted - States. Will it ho maintained, if the British Gov ernment should say, we recognise the act of McNab Jl in fobbing ybnf mail as we have-alreadyrecogV nized that of his burning your steamboat and kill ing your citizens, that Mr. Webster would be jus tified in directing a nolle prosequi to bo entreated in his favor, and thus suffer him to go free! I do not-say that the British Government would at in this manner: but 1 put the case as 1 a fair il lustration of the argument."- There was bno case in which something very like this might havohappen-. __ Jcd,_andoWaseyen_thoughtthatii would happen. It was reported that an expedition had been planned to seize the, person of McLeod, and to carry 'him off to Canada; and 1 believe that a very distinguish ed gallant general in the United States service, (Gen. Scott)—an officer for whom, in common , with his followcitizehs,lcherish the highest respect and regard—went, in company with the Attorney General, to Loekport; and it was conjectured that be had received orders' to hold McLeod and de fend the Locknort jail against any incursion of Sir Allen McNab or any other person. Suppose now that such an expedition had been set on foot, that it bad succeeded, and that McLeod had been seized and carried off in triumph, the two nations being still io profound peace.’ The rescue of a prisoner is a high criminal offence.— What.would have been done with McNab if he had voluntarily oome within oar jurisdiction and been arrested? If bo.could bo indicted and tried and punished before the British Government should have time to recognise his act, very well. But if not, then, at the moment of such' recognition, ho would be no longer responsible and must forthwith be set free. The principle of Vattel, rightly under stood absolutely secures the territorial sovereignty of nations jn lime of peace by permitting them to punish all' invasions of it in their own criminal courts, and his doctrino is eminently calculated to preserve peace among all nations. War lias its own laws, which are never to bo extended to the intercourse between nations at peace. The principle assumed in ML Tex’s letter is well calculated for the benefit of powerful nations a gainst their weaker neighbors. (But in saying this 1 do not mean to admit that we are a weaker nation in comparison with iingland. We do not, intend, nor wish togotowarwith her,yeti am con fident in the belief that whatever we might suffer ■during the early period of such a contest would be amply compensated by our success before we reached the end of it.) But let me present an ex ample. Let us suppose that the empire of Russia has by hor side a coterminous nation, which is com paratively weak. A Russian Colonel, during a season of profound peace, passes over the bound ary; and commits some criminal actaginst the'cit izens of the weaker nation; They succeeded, how ever, in seizing his person, and are about to apply the provisions of their own laws. But, immedi ately the Russian double-headed black eagle makes its appearance; a Russian officer says to the au thorities of the weaker nation, stop; take off your bands; you shall not vindicate your laws and sov ereignty. We assume this man’s crime os a na tional act. . What is the consequoncol The rule for which Britain- contends will in this case com ■ pel the injured nation, though the weaker, to de clare war in the first instance agitfnst her stronger neighbor. But she will not do it; she will not be come the actor, from the consciousness of-her weakness and the instinct of self-preservation.— This, principle, If established, will enable the strong to insult the weaker with impunity. But take the principle ns laid down-by Vatlel. The laws by punishing the Russian subject who had violated them; if war is to- ensue, Russia must as sume the responsibility of declaring it, in the. face of the world, and in on unjust cause,' against the nation whom she has injured. It is said that one great purpossoflawß of nationals to protect the weak against Hie strong, and never was this ten dency more happilyjllustrated than by this very principle of Vattel for which I ain contendin'"-. I therefofe believe that the Secretary of State was as far wrong in his view of international law ns in his haste to appease the British Government in the .face of a direct threat, by his instructions to Mr. Crittenden. The communication of these instructions to taht Government, >vc know, had the desired effect. They wont out immediately to England, and no sooner rfofe tliey known on that side of the water, than in a moment all was calm . and tranquil. The storm, portending war, passed away; and tranquiljieace once more returned end emiled over the scene. Sir; the British Govem- mentmosthave been hard-hearted indeed, if a pe rusal ofthose instructions did not soften them, and aflbrd themost ample satisfaction,. This amiable teifipsr will never even be, ruffled fn the slightest degree by the peraual of Mr. Webster’s letter,to Mr. hoi, written six weeks afterwards.- The mat? ter had all been virtually ended before its, date. In the views I have now expressed I may be wrong 1 ; but) as an Aroerican Senator, without any fooling on my part but.such as.l think every Amc rlca» Senator oughtto cherish, lam constrained to say 111 at 1 cannot approve ot the course pursuccTlTjr tho Secretary of Slate in this matter; ivhilo at the same time, I-hope and,trust that no other occasion may arise, to demand from me a similar criticism on the official conduct of tliat-gcatloman. ADDRESS, OF THE DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE, To the People of Pennsylvania, NO. 3. V Fellow Citizens: —The next veto mes , sage, which we shall analyze for the infor mation of the people of Pennsylvania,- will bo that upon a bill, entitled “Jin act for the relief of certain contractors on the Ji’eslern Exlcmion. of the Pennsylvania liailroad.” The provisions* contained in this bill were pc .manifestly unjust and obnoxious that- it is difficult to.conceive, what real friend of the interests of the commonwealth can with hold from Gov. PORTER the meed, of ap probation, for having refused to let them be come a law. These provisions >vcre nothing less than to put THOUSANDS OF* DOL LARS into the pockets of the, contractors on the famous Gettysburg Railroad, in the shape of interest upon debts alleged to.be due them. 'Che bill even went so far as to make liberal-allowances of'interest to those who had been already paid the amount to be due them, on a re-measurement of the work done. This was an entirely novel and un precedented mode of adjusting the claims of this class of*public creditors, and received for the first time in the history of Pennsyl vania- the sanction of legislative enactment. From the first day that Pennsylvania em barked iti lier system of internal improve ments, no contractor upon any portion of those works, had ever been allowed one far thing in the shape of interest upon his claims, however long a time may have elaps ed between the period of finishing the work and the payment of the claim. The princi ple INVARIABLY acted Upon in all other cases, was, to.allow no interest, upon this species of claim, and the hundreds of con- tractors who have been engaged on the va rious other portions of the public work, have never received such an allowance. Neither was’this principle of settlement, understood as it was beforehand by the parties, to be the law of the contract, ever deemed-onor ous by previous contractors. The terms and manner ofpayincut were so,well understood, as was juat and reasonatrfa? WV venture to affirm that since the coinmencement of. the public, works there has not been a single ycar;-in which the state, in consequence of the exhaustion of appropriations, or other causes,-was not-constrained to withhold pay ment for a time from those to whom she was indebted, and yet they have never been a dollar paid in the shape of interest? This principle, so firmly settled by the practice of years! was violated arid set at nought by this bill, and a new one attempt ed to be introduced in its stead, of the most disastrous character. Had. the Executive sanctioned this new fancied “retrench ment” of the federal legislature, the certain consequences would have been, that it would have INVITED to the public coffersa new host of creditors, each bearing in his hand a demand for monies, of which he had never dreamed; until the provisions of this bill reached his ears. Our state debt, already of such appalling magnitude, would have ■ been DOUBLED by these new claims, and the Treasury' of the Commonwealth EN GULPHED in irretrievable bankruptcy and ruin. All this, however, has been happily frustrated by the fearless interposition of thb' VETO power, ond the pockets of the people (protected against such wholesale plunder. ■ _ The people will here be naturally lead to inquire, what* were the peculiar merits of the creditors, which may have induced the federal majority in (he legislature to consti tute them such especial FAVORITES, as to grant the boon of INTEREST upon their demands,while ithasbeen uniformly WITH HELD from other contractors, whose claims are strictly identical. .Why this un justifiable discrimination between men stan ding on precisely the same footing? Why extend to the contractors on the Gettysburg road certain extra allowances, and with hold them from contractors presenting claims due fur work done, on the Erie extension, the North Branch canal, the Delaware di vision, the Columbia rail road, or- any por tion of our state works? Can ingenuity it self conceive a single valid reason for the difference?. Would not this UNEQUAL mode of treating public creditors have re flected the utmost disgrace upoii* the - com monwealth .in which we live—that,common wealth whose reputation for justice, honesty and fair dealing,, legislators, above all other men, should feel it their duty to sustain? If any difference whatever existed in the merits of these claims, it was rather against than in favor of the- contractors upon this useless road. They arose under the CAL AMITOUS act of February-18, 1836, in corporating the BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, the ninth section of which author ized the CanaLCammissioncrs "to survey and locate the road in question, and to put not less than twenty nor more than thirty miles thereof under contract,-the sum s of $200,000 being specifically appropriated to the work.*’ '1 be 12th section of the same deplorable act, expressly provides, that "the Canal Commissioners shall not be authori zed to incur-any debt, on the faith of the Commonwealth, IN ANY WAY OR M AN NER BEYOND THE APPROPRIATION AFORESAID.” Here the original act, au thorizing the construction of (his worse than useless road expressly PROHIBITED the expenditure of any money upon it, beyond the specific appropriation".'"'" TKis express enactment, part o( their own ill fated bant ling, the federal majority in our last legis lature found no .difficulty in VIOLATING, if thereby they could fil 1 the purses of cer tain favorites! And because DAVID R. PORTER, in the character of a patriot and ,an honest man, refused to'become accessory to this double violation of law- and justice, they have'the effrontery to charge upon him an ’’abuse” of thereto power! Nbr is this all. ■ On the 9th' day of De cember,lB37, an act passed both branches of the Legislature,' l appropriating $45,000 towards the same road, to bo applied in pay ment of work actually done prior to the Ist of .January! (then ensuing.) and directing the' Canal. Commissioners tb givc notico to the contractors to SUSPEND thyirwbrk ion said road, from and after the said first' Hay ot January. : ~ 1 —; ; ~ ’Fliis act was intended to become a law, and to lake cfleet the first day of January, 1838, but owing to a miserable and paltry 'TRICK, played dll’by the then Executive, Joseph Ritneu, doubtless at tire instigation ofThaddeus Stevens, the act in question was not returned to llie Legislature until After the Ist of January, by which means [ its operation was postponed for ; ONE YEAR, and the reasonable and just expectation!) of .the Legislature were frustrated. ■ By the act of 14th April, 1838, the fur ther sum of $195,000 was appropriated to this rail road, to be applied to tbe work, al- under -contract, .and the resolution which'had previously passed the Legislature as aforesaid, was repealed. But by tlic 6th section of this net it was provided, that, "the Canal Commissioners shall not be authori zed to incur any debt on the faith of the Commonwealth, in any way or manner, BE-' YOND THE APPROPRIATION afqre said.” , ' Instead, however, of stopping the work on the road, the moment.the specific appro priations thereto were,exhausted, the then Federal Canal Commissioners incurred hea vy responsibilities beyond thcm,.in violation of the previous Legislative enactments, and it was not until Governor Porter came into power that the work upon thc+oad was sus pended, and the consequent drain upon the Treasury cut off. In accordance with his -recommendations, the work was ordered to be suspended after the Ist of March, 1839, and a temporary loan of $150,000 authori ze tl, for the purpose of paying debts previ ously contracted. A single glan.ee at these several acts of Assembly must bring irresistible conviction to the mind of every one, that they did hot invest the contractors on the Gettysburg rail road with-'claims to favor superior to thosc-of any other contractors. They were cognizant of the fact that the Legislature had' ordered the work to be suspenued.-Jiad that this decree met with almost .universal favor from the people—they knew also, that the very act under which they continued to work on the road was intended to have ta ken effect on the Ist day of January, before, and that this intention was defeated by a conleinptible ARTIFICE—they were also fully aware of the specific sums appropria , ted ,to..thc ; work, anrljhat .the Canal„Comr from contracting any additional debt ondli&l faith of the‘Slate beyond these -surffS, arid | that they were co-operating with those ofii ccrs tq cm ploy a n .cx traordina ry forcc on .the •road, especially about the election in 1838— and 'yet, possjssing all this knowledge, the federal majonticg jn the recent Legislature gravely enacted a law, to grant them EX ’rßAisMfinnensation —NEVER ENJOYED BY .OTppR CONTRACTORS-and as unprcccdqtfted| as it would have been RU INOUS and UNJUST to the State!! ■ After this undeniable statement of facts, which will challcngmonlradiction, we again put the solemn question to the honest,, in dustrious tax: payers of Pennsylvania— WHOSE CONDUCT DO YOU AP PROVE? That of (lie-federal members of the Legislature, who. were anxious to set the precedent for an unheard of sppeies of FA VORITISM, in the disbursement of public monies, or that of DAVID R. PORTER, who wished all the creditors of the State placed upon an EQUALITY, and who by this single exercise oflhe Veto power, saved MILLIONS to the State? To your intel ligence and patriotism we cheerfully submit it to decide, who was RIGHT and who was WRONG. In our subsequent addresses, we purpose analyzing the several bank .bills passed by the Federal Legislature, and vetoed by our patriotic and enlightened Executive.' They wiltr we confidently predict, exhibit his con duct in the same glorious light, and give him additional claims to the gratitude and support of every true-hearted Peqnsylvahi an. H. BJJEHLER, Chairman Jacod Seiler, Secretary. Twenty-Seventh Congress. FIRST SESSION. _ IN SENATE, Wednesday, June 16, 1841. Mr.- Benton called up the resolution which he had submitted some ten days backhand which was laid on the table yesterday, with an understanding that it would be taken up to-day. Mr. Clay of, Kentucky said die resolution had been laid on the table by a votqof the Senate, as the proper way of disposing of it. He'therefore opposed itsbeing taken up. Mr. Calhoun characterized this course of proceeding as most extraordinary. Almost the whole legislation' of Congress is to be based on the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, and in looking over that report there were many statements which li ( q con sidered erroneous and which demanded cx.t planation'. Was it unreasonable in them to ask for information on subjects which were brought before them for legislation, aiid.were motions of this kind to be refused even a consideration? Mr. Clay.of Kentucky. It is not worth while to get into a passion. Mr. Calhoun. No passion, sir. , I hfive a right to ask and receive the information call ed for in this resolution. _ Mr. Clay, of Kentucky. Yes, you have a right; and what does it come to? What does it come to? The majority also have rights, and he supposed they were as much entitled to consideration as those of the minority.— But it Was hot so much the resolution of the Senator from Missouri as the amendment of the Senator from-New Hampshire, which entered into a wide scope of inquiry, which, in his opinion., could lead to no practical re sults. He asked that the resolution gnd a-, mendment might be read; which was done.. The resolution .of Mr.,.Benton was'as fol lows; Resolved, That the President of the Uni ted States.be requested to lay before, the Se nate a schedule of "the payments made from the Treasury during the months of March, April,, and Slav, of the present year. To which IVfr. Woodbury proposed as an amendment, after the word ‘‘year,”, add: : “Under each'head of appropriation, be ginning on the 4th of the first namedmonth,' and a schedule of the amounts under each head of appropriation, which lie has estima ted in liis report to Congress will be. requir ed for expenditure from the first of-June to the last pf An, ;ust, and also oT th’oa inbuilt s' in a similar manner required from the.first of September to the close of the year} mak ing, .with those before named, his aggregate o( 824,200,000 wanted between the 4th of March and the 31st of December, : “Also, wliat is the amount of debt under past.appropriations which lie .recommended to be landed, and what under,future appro priations to be made at this session, includ ing in the latter any stock for capital to be invested in a National Bank.” ' Mr. Calhoun said, that in his opinion, the information called for was highly necessary to correct action on the question broughthe fore them. The Secretary.of the Treasury ought to furnish the details on which he draws results manifestly erroneous. In making out his report he should have shown what was the state of the Treasury which authorized the call,of this session. 'The ob ject of this resolution was to obtain that in formation. And are those who have no oth er means of obtaining that itiformatioh tb be excluded from calling up a resolution of in quiry demanded by the people? Let not the gentleman resort to this gagging mode of stifling Information which the whole country expects.- If this system be carried out it will justly be attributed to an admission that no explanation can be given. Mr. Woodbu,ry\cmarked, that the object of calling up this resolution was, as he un derstood it, to give him an opportunity of making the few observations he had to make on the report of the Secretary of the Treas ury. It was not intended to propose the passage of the resolution. He hoped, there fore, there would be no objection to the mo tion merely to take it up. Mr. Benton said the motion was simply to fake up the resolution: When taken tip,.the question would be first on its amendment, and then on its adoption. It amounted to this-r-tha't the opposition now made was a gajnst taking up the resolution fur consider ation. The question was not now bn its a doptipn—that could be prevented by the u sual course. ■ ’ 1 : Mr. Clay of Kentucky contended that no Senator at his side'of the house had any dis position not to afford the gentlemen on the opposite, every opportunity for inquiring which plight be requisite of in formation. ’ What’ they were opposed to was motions and resolutions delaying the busi ness? and not.intendcd, to leadjtqi'.any action row,' . ■ , Mr. Calhoun hoped (he Senator fronrNcw Hampshire, would wiKlfthuv Ins ainc«H!HCi hibited the ignominious spectacle of' being thirty days m bur organization, and that now again more than a fortnight has been consumed in the same preliminary process:- I say that if this spectacle is to be repeated Congress after Congress, and we arc to hold ourselves up to the eyes of the American People nnd of the Universe, as Representa tives of the, People it is true, but as Rcpre sentativeSincompctcnttopeffoVurihe'duties of Government, the time will conic, the time must come, when.another Cromwell will be justified by the people in purging these Halls. The time must and will come when another Napoleon \ydl say, as Napoleon did say to Le Fevre in the time of the French Directo ry, “Join with in? in saving our country;” and when the reply will be, as that, °f Le . Fevre was, “Yes, let us throw these advo- , cates info the river:” for it is words, words, \ words, and nothing but words in this House, i Once more I entreat gentlemen to act, and , I will set the example by taking my seat. i WHO WANTS A NEW NATIONAL BANK? Daniel Webster, upper Secretary of State. And how can. he possibly do without it now that the old'bank. can po longer continue its fees and its loans? Daniel wants money somewhere, and will not be denied. . While venue, Daniel cannot keepJiW hands Treasury with any sarctyuhtil the Sub- 1 Treasury with its penalty of fine and the penitentiary shall be repealed, and'a hew odor shall-pcrfume4he air -with-a National Bank. If 'the notes of a National Bank shall dvery where be made- current by au thorizing their reception for all dues- to the United States, there can he no end to the accommodation such a . Bank could give Daniel Webster; what is the loan and' loss of $llO,OOO to one man, when the friend ship of that man would be worth millions to the reckless speculators who control the sub scriptions to the stock of a new Bank? Dan- iel Webster, more thaij any other man, wants a new Bank; and a new Bank he has deter- mined shall be granted, that a new set of swindlers may do by him as the old set have done. Thomas Ewing, Secretary of the Treasu ry, wants a new Bank,. The old one stood him very well in lending him the means, while he was supporting -its re-charter in 1833, of speculating in Virginia 'land scrip which he assisted the then Senator -and now acting President Tyler to legislate into a value equal to cash;.and it is said the hank has'kept up its. friendly aid by furnishing him many other cool thousands to buy up and carry on Salt works, at the West. That salt has lost its savor —the old Bank can no longer serve Secretary Ewiiig; and it is an nounced, on the authority of Whig papers, that “The Secretary of the Treasury has prepared a plan for a National bank, which tie intends to lay before Congress, in his re port, at the commencement of the coming Session. In its v main features IT WILL RE SEMBLE THE LATE BaNK, BUT WILL BE SUR ROUNDED BY SUCH CHECKS, GUARDS, 1 AND RE STRICTIONS.AS EXPERIENCE HAS INDICATED AS USEFUL OR NECESSARY.” The "checks, guards, and restrictions” proposed by Secretary Ewing, are hot traps to gul) the people. What "checks, guards, and restrictions” in the old charter operated to prevent abuse? What check, guard or restriction in the Pennsylvania bank has op erated in the charter last granted? Every salutary, regulation which stood in the way of the swindler’s speculations, was put at defiance. No, no! Ewing while he is in his present position, has a private reason for wanting a new Bank: he can make his tune at once from the Control which lie will exercise over every incipient movement.— Will the man who has gone into the old bank to the.extent of.SecretaryiEwing, fail to go in the new Bank to.an equal extent? John Bell, Secretary of War, also wants a nOw Bank. Smaller than that of Webster and Ewing, Ids-loan from the Bank about the time he was elected Speaker of the House, on his protestations of friendship to Jackson and Democracy, was only $50,000. He wilj.not want less money in his new po sition than jie did in his old place of mem ber of Congress. The old Bank no longer of use to him, he is decidedly in favor of a new one.*; * , To some violent’parlizans it would suffice that these three. Cabinet Ministers of the acting President, whose nod will produce precisely the action required, want money and must have a Bank. But there are still more potent interests all operating at this time to press the Great Curse upon the peo ple. Thousands of Jew brokers-who intend to clutch at and hold on the stocks, speculating upon its rUej and; wanting no better* means to sustain jts value than the action which shall give it the complete control of the mo ney and means of the government, making its notes every where receivable for the pub ic ducsp.these want a new Bank. Thousands of speculators, who expect to be furnished with.the means of raising and depressing prices and of making moncy ei ther plenty or scarce, jpst as the. managers shall choose—thereby making this a new engine by which to monopolize trade and prices, and to turn the. wholo.productive la bor of. the country into. the.channel, which shall oppress industry and cneouragc lhc ra pacity of the shrewrd andoverbearing: all those want a Bank,, ' is. for the want a new Bank,' ithout a lie* Bank, they see no chance of continuing long in power. With a new Bank, they flatter themselves the reign of corruption will be perpetuated. They want tho Bank-as an electioneering machine—they want it as a sure means,of creating an 'artiflciahpublic opinion and keeping it in their favor.’ : They know the Bank can nifurd its largesses.while the'administration shall be kept in'the hands of men under its control,'because these can repay to the-Bank tenfold the' cost, They want a Bank, because through no other in strument can they contrive to prostrate tile democracy.— From Hill’s N, 11. Patriot. Decision of the'Supreme Court in the - York Presbyterian Case. English Presbyterian Congregation vs .}■ >* 1 his wasan action of ejectment brought to try tho title to certain, property in York, 'under the following facts: The property was granted by the Penns in ITBS, for the use of the English Presby terians, in and near the town of York. In 1782 and since, the congregation there was connected with the Dunncgal Presbytery, and that Was afterwards merged in the Car lisle Presbytery. A portion of the congre gation, in October 1838, seceded from the Carlisle Presbytery, denied their jurisdic tion, and refused to submit to them. These were known by the name of New School party. The other portion of the congrega tion, known as the Old School, adhered to the Carlisle Presbytery, and are still in con nexion, • 'J'he latter being ousted of the pro perly, brought suit, and upon a decision in the, court below against them, carried it up to the supreme court by writ of error. The supreme court being divided three to two, Judge Gibson declared the opinion affirming the decision below, on the ground that tho new school were the majority,—Judges Hus ton and Kennedy dissenting.— Keystone. From the Hangar TFhi