This will appear from the 12th section of this bill, which merely borrows this provision from pre-existing laws. It introduces no new principle whatever. This doctrine is carried still further, by an act passed the 3d of March, 1807, in the eighth volume of the laws, page 318: "An Act to prevent settlements being made on lands ceded to the United States, until authorized by law. "And it shall moreover be lawful for the President of the United States to direct the Marshal, or officer acting as Marshal, in the manner hereinafter directed, and also to take such other measures, and to employ such military force as he may judge necessary and proper, to remove from lands ceded, or secured to the United States by treaty, or cession as aforesaid, any person or persons who shall hereafter take possession of the same, or make or attempt to make a settlement thereon, until authorized by law." Here the President is authorized to use the military force to remove settlers from the public lands without the intervention of courts; and the reason is, that the peculiarity of the case is not suited to the jurisdiction of courts, nor would their powers be competent to the object, nor, indeed, are courts allowed to interfere with any claims of individuals against the United States, but Congress undertakes to decide upon all such cases finally and peremptorily, without the intervention of courts. This part of the bill is, therefore, supported both by principle and precedent. While speaking of the distrust of courts, I hope I may be indulged in remarking, that individually my respect for judicial proceedings is materially impaired. I find, sir, that latterly, in some instances, the callous insensibility to extrinsic objects, which, in times past, was thought the most honorable trait in the character of an upright judge, is now, by some courts, entirely disrespected. It seems, by some judges, to be no longer thought an ornament to the judicial character, but is now substituted by the most capricious sensibilities. WEDNESDAY, December 21. _Enforcement of the Embargo._ Mr. POPE spoke in favor of the bill. And on the question, Shall this bill pass? it was determined in the affirmative--yeas 20, nays 7, as follows: YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Condit, Crawford, Franklin, Gaillard, Giles, Gregg, Kitchel, Milledge, Mitchill, Moore, Pope, Robinson, Smith of Maryland, Smith of New York, Smith of Tennessee, Sumter, Thruston, Tiffin, and Turner. NAYS.--Messrs. Gilman, Goodrich, Hillhouse, Lloyd, Mathewson, Pickering, and White. WEDNESDAY, December 28. The VICE PRESIDENT being absent by reason of the ill state of his health, the Senate proceeded to the election of a President _pro tempore_, as the constitution provides; and STEPHEN R. BRADLEY was appointed. FRIDAY, January 6, 1809.