It has been long known, both from theory and in practice, that the imperfect transparency of the earth's atmosphere, and the unequal refraction which arises from differences of temperature, combine to set a limit to the use of high magnifying powers in our telescopes. Hitherto, however, the application of such high powers was checked by the imperfections of the instruments themselves; and it is only since the construction of Lord Rosse's telescope that astronomers have found that, in our damp and variable climate, it is only during a few days of the year that telescopes of such magnitude can use successfully the high magnifying powers which they are capable of bearing. Even in a cloudless sky, when the stars are sparkling in the firmament, the astronomer is baffled by influences which are invisible, and while new planets and new satellites are being discovered by instruments comparatively small, the gigantic Polyphemus lies slumbering in his cave, blinded by thermal currents, more irresistible than the firebrand of Ulysses. As the astronomer, however, can not command a tempest to clear his atmosphere, nor a thunder storm to purify it, his only alternative is to remove his telescope to some southern climate, where no clouds disturb the serenity of the firmament, and no changes of temperature distract the emanations of the stars. A fact has been recently mentioned, which entitles us to anticipate great results from such a measure. The Marquis of Ormonde is said to have seen from Mount Etna, with his naked eye, the satellites of Jupiter. If this be true, what discoveries may we not expect, even in Europe, from a large reflector working above the grosser strata of our atmosphere. This noble experiment of sending a large reflector to a southern climate has been but once made in the history of science. Sir John Herschel transported his telescopes and his family to the south of Africa, and during a voluntary exile of four years' duration he enriched astronomy with many splendid discoveries.—Sir David Brewster.
Monthly Record Of Current Events.
The Political Incidents of the past month have been interesting and important. Congress, after spending eight or nine months in most animated discussion of the principles, results, and relations of various subjects growing out of Slavery in the Southern States, has enacted several provisions of very great importance to the whole country. The debates upon these topics, especially in the Senate, have been exceedingly able, and have engrossed public attention to an unusual degree. The excitement which animated the members of Congress gradually extended to those whom they represented, and a state of feeling had arisen which was regarded, by many judicious and experienced men, as full of danger to the harmony and well-being, if not to the permanent existence, of the American Union. The action of Congress during the month just closed, concludes the controversy upon these questions, and for the time, at least, prevents vigorous and effective agitation of the principles which they involved. What that action has been we shall state with as much detail and precision as our readers will desire.
In the last number of the New Monthly Magazine, we chronicled the action of the Senate upon several of the bills now referred to. They were sent of course to the House of Representatives, and that body first took up the bill establishing the boundary of Texas, and giving her ten millions of dollars in payment of her claim to the portion of New Mexico which the bill requires her to relinquish. Mr. Boyd, of Kentucky, moved as an amendment, to attach to it the bills for the government of Utah and New Mexico, substantially as they had passed the Senate, both being without any anti-slavery proviso. He subsequently withdrew that portion of the amendment relating to Utah; and an effort was made by Mr. Ashmun to cut off the remainder of the amendment by the previous question, but the House refused by a vote of 74 ayes to 107 nays. The subject was discussed with a good deal of animation for several days. On the 4th of September, a motion to lay the bill on the table was defeated—ayes 30, nays 169. A motion to refer the bill to the Committee of the Whole, which was considered equivalent to its rejection, was then carried—ayes 109, nays 99;—but a motion to reconsider that vote was immediately passed—ayes 104, nays 98;—and the House then refused to refer the bill to the Committee of the Whole by a vote of 101 ayes and 103 nays. Mr. Clingman, of North Carolina, moved an amendment to divide California, and erect the southern part of it into the territory of Colorado;—but this was rejected—ayes 69, nays 130. The question was then taken on the amendment, organizing a territorial government for New Mexico, and was lost—ayes 98, nays 106. The question then came up on ordering the Texas Boundary bill to a third reading, and the House refused to do so by a vote of 80 ayes and 126 nays. Mr. Boyd immediately moved to reconsider that vote, and on the 5th that motion passed—ayes 131, nays 75. Mr. Grinell, of Massachusetts then moved to reconsider the vote by which Mr. Boyd's amendment had been rejected, and this was carried by a vote of 106 to 99. An amendment, offered by Mr. Featherston, of Virginia, to strike out all after the enacting clause, and to make the Rio Grande, from its mouth to its source, the boundary of Texas, was rejected by a vote of 71 in favor to 128 against it. The amendment of Mr. Boyd was then passed by a vote of 106 ayes and 99 noes; and the question was then taken on ordering the bill, as amended, to a third reading. It was lost by a vote of 99 ayes to 107 noes. Mr. Howard, of Texas, who had voted against the bill, immediately moved a reconsideration of the vote. The Speaker decided that the motion was not in order, inasmuch as a reconsideration had once been had. Mr. Howard appealed from the decision, and contended that the former vote was simply to reconsider the vote on the original bill, whereas this was to reconsider the vote on the bill as amended by Mr. Boyd.—On the fifth, the House reversed the Speaker's decision, 123 to 83,—thus bringing up again the proposition to order the bill to a third reading. Mr. Howard moved the previous question, and his motion was sustained, 103 to 91;—and the bill was then ordered to a third reading by a vote of 108 to 98. The bill was then read a third time, and finally passed by a vote of 108 ayes to 98 nays.—As this bill is one of marked importance, we add, as a matter of record, the following analysis of the vote upon it:—the names of Democrats are in Roman letter, Whigs in italics, and members of the Free Soil party in small capitals:—
Ayes.—Indiana, Albertson, W.J. Brown, Dunham, Fitch, Gorman, McDonald, Robinson.—Alabama, Alston, W.R.W. Cobb, Hilliard.—Tennessee, Anderson, Ewing, Gentry, I.G. Harris, A. Johnson, Jones, Savage, F.P. Stanton, Thomas, Watkins, Williams.—New YORK, Anrews, Bokee, Briggs, Brooks, Duer, McKissock, Nelson, Phænix, Rose, Schermerhorn, Thurman, Underhill, White—Iowa, Leffler.—Rhode-Island, Geo. G. King.—Missouri, Bay, Bowlin, Green, Hall.—Virginia, Bayly, Beale, Edmunson, Haymond, McDowell, McMullen, Martin, Parker.—Kentucky, Boyd, Breck, G.A. Caldwell, J.L. Johnson, Marshall, Mason, McLean, Morehead, R.H. Stanton, John B. Thompson.—Maryland, Bowie, Hammond, Kerr, McLane.—Michigan, Buel.—Florida, E.C. Cabell.—Delaware, J.W. Houston.—Pennsylvania, Chester Butler, Casey, Chandler, Dimmick, Gilmore, Levin, Job Mann, McLanahan, Pitman, Robbins, Ross, Strong, [pg 701] James Thompson.—North Carolina, R.C. Caldwell, Deherry, Outlaw, Shepperd, Stanly.—Ohio, Disney, Hoagland, Potter, Taylor, Whittlesey.—Massachusetts, Duncan, Eliot, Grinnell.—Maine, Fuller, Gerry, Littlefield.—Illinois, Thomas L. Harris, McClernand, Richardson, Young.—New-Hampshire, Hibbard, Peaslee, Wilson.—Texas, Howard, Kaufman.—Georgia, Owen, Toombs, Welborn.—New Jersey, Wildrick.
Nays.—New York, Alexander, Bennett, Burrows, Clark, Conger, Gott, Holloway, W.T. Jackson, John A. King, Preston King, Matteson, Putnam, Reynolds, Ramsey, Sackett, Schoolcraft, Silvester.—Massachusetts, Allen, Fowler, Horace Mann, Rockwell.—North Carolina, Clingman, Daniel, Venable.—Virginia, Averett, Holiday, Mead, Millson, Powell, Seddon.—Illinois, Baker, Wentworth.—Michigan, Bingham, Sprague.—Alabama, Bowdon, S.W. Harris, Hubbard, Inge.—Mississippi, A.G. Brown, Featherston, McWillie, Jacob Thompson.—South Carolina, Burt, Colcock, Holmes, Orr, Wallace, Woodward, McQueen.—Connecticut, Thomas B. Butler, Waldo, Booth.—Ohio, Cable, Campbell, Cartter, Corwin, Crowell, Nathan Evans, Giddings, Hunter, Morris, Olds, Root, Schenck, Sweetzer, Vinton.—Pennsylvania, Calvin, Dickey, Howe, Moore, Ogle, Reed, Thaddeus Stevens.—Wisconsin, Cole, Doty, Durkee.—Rhode Island, Dìxon.—Georgia, Haralson, Jos. W. Jackson.—Indiana, Harlan, Julian, McGaughey.—Vermont, Hebard, Henry, Meacham, Peck.—Arkansas, Robert W. Johnson.—New Jersey, James G. King, Newell, Van Dyke.—Louisiana, La Sere, Morse.—Maine, Otis, Sawtelle, Stetson.—Missouri, Phelps.—New Hampshire, TUCK.
This analysis shows that there voted
For The Bill:
Northern Whigs: 24
Southern Whigs: 25-49
Northern Democrats: 32
Southern Democrats: 27-59
Total: 108.
Against The Bill:
Northern Whigs: 44
Southern Whigs: 1-45
Northern Democrats: 13
Southern Democrats: 30-43
Total: 98.