On looking over the list, it was subsequently discovered, that the vote of Hon. John W. Farrelly of Crawford county, Pennsylvania, was not recorded. This added intensity to the interest already felt on the subject. The next meeting of the House was on Monday, when the Speaker recited the facts as they occurred on Saturday, and declared that, on a more careful examination, it was found that the vote stood--"ayes _eighty-nine_, noes _eighty-nine_." Mr. Farrelly inquired, if his vote was recorded? The Speaker informed him it was not, but that it was his right to have it recorded, if he had actually voted on the passage of the bill. That gentleman declared that he had voted _no_, on the passage of the bill, and the vote being recorded, the Speaker declared the result to be "_ayes eighty-nine, noes_ NINETY," and then announced the bill "_lost_!" The friends of freedom were greatly cheered, from the consideration, that party ties had not been strong enough to control members on this important vote. Of the twenty-one members from Ohio, only Mr. Ritchey of Perry, Mr. Cummins of Tuscarawas, and Mr. Taylor of Ross, voted with the slaveholders; while such Democrats as Messrs. Faran, Fries, Kennon, Lamb, Miller, Morris, Sawyer and Starkweather voted against the doctrine that men and women may be held and treated as property. Indeed, there were but few Representatives from the free States willing to recognize that doctrine. No member from New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, Michigan, Wisconsin or Iowa voted for it. From Maine, Messrs. Clapp, Clarke and Williams; from New York, Messrs. Birdsal, McClay, Murphy, Necoll and Tallmadge; from Pennsylvania, Messrs. Brady, Bridges, Brodhead, Charles Brown, C. J. Ingersol, Levin and Job Mann; from Indiana, Messrs. Dunn, R. W. Thompson and Wick; and from Illinois, Messrs. McClernand and Richardson voted to pay Pacheco a thousand dollars, because General Jessup sent a most dangerous enemy out of Florida. Mr. Burt, and the friends of slavery generally, appeared irritated by defeat. They had driven their Northern allies to revolt. The more they reflected upon the subject, the more important the issue appeared. They had caused great agitation, while professing to deprecate all discussion in regard to slavery. If slaves were not _property_ under the Federal Constitution, they must be regarded as _persons_. If the civilized world looked upon them as persons, those who held them in bondage must of course be considered as oppressors of mankind, and could have no claim to the title of Democrats or of Christians. In every point of view, the result appeared disastrous to the slave power.