Mr. Crittenden resumed, in a review of the evidence. He briefly reviewed his own remarks of yesterday, and then proceeded to quote from the letters of Robertson, while so endeavoring to benefit the children of South Carolina, had never informed the commission of his plans up to December 30th. One point Mr. Robertson had made was that Ivison, Blakeman & Co. were disappointed and for that reason they had made an attack upon him. This, Mr. Crittenden said, was too thin, as the publishers referred to were not that kind of men. He then concluded by saying that he hoped the time had come when the people of South Carolina would show to the world that the time had passed when the adventurers could come from other portions of the country, and with professions of love for the negroes and children of the State, take advantage of their own pockets. The colored people had learned better sense than to trust such people any longer. Curtis, who was acting speaker, here asked what construction the House placed on Act 2, section 16 of the constitution, which relates to the number of votes required to expel a member, from the floor. Mr. Orr held that the Supreme Court had decided that two-thirds of the number present were competent to expel. Some one else claimed that it required two-thirds of all the members on roll. The speaker here cited a case in the House Journals in which it was decided that two-thirds of the members present was sufficient. Mr. Brayton stated that two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate were necessary to impeach a judge, and he thought that as much consideration should be shown to the members of the House. In justice to themselves they ought to insist upon the passage of the following resolution: Resolved, that it is the sense of this House that in order to expel a member a two-thirds vote of all the members elected is required. Freeman, of Charleston, spoke against the resolution, taking the same ground as that held by Mr. Orr. Bampfield rose to a point of order that it was the duty of the chair to decide. If necessary an appeal could be had. The chair stated that if he decided it would be in favor of the view that it required two-thirds of the members present. Freeman thought it very strange that no defense had been offered by the friends of the accused, and proposed to amend Brayton's resolution by striking out "elected" and inserting "present." Mr. Orr said that no resolution of ruling of the chair was necessary as they had the decision of the Supreme Court on the matter, and that was their law. Richardson's Supreme Court Reports, volume 4, has already decided this question, and he didn't see the use of construing the law when it was already construed by such authority.