Mr. ARCHER inquired of the Chair which of the motions that had been made had priority.

The CHAIR replied that the question was whether the request of the accused for liberty to make a motion should be granted.

Mr. ARCHER said that he had moved that the accused do retire.

The CHAIR replied that he had not understood the gentleman as making that motion.

Mr. ARCHER said that he had, and he now renewed the motion.

Mr. CLAY opposed the motion as tending to occasion loss of time. This was a mere preliminary question, and there was no reason why the accused should retire.

[APRIL 18, 1832.

Mr. IRVIN said he had long been conversant with judicial proceedings, but had never before heard of such a thing as the right of challenge being extended to a member of the court, and he was about to inquire whether such a motion could be received;

When the SPEAKER reminded him that the motion had not yet received its form.

Mr. KEx now presented his motion in substance as follows:

[The accused asks leave to object to an honorable member's sitting in the House on the present trial, upon the ground that he has formed and expressed an opinion unfavorable to the accused, and has thereby committed himself upon the question.]

Mr. McDUFFIE now moved that the accused be removed from the bar by the Sergeant-at-Arms, and that his counsel retire.

Mr. ARCHER said he would postpone his motion for the present, until he should learn what was the nature of the motion to be submitted by the counsel of the accused. If the motion and the protest should prove to have a Mr. CLAY opposed the motion, and insisted that he connexion with each other, it might be proper that both ought not to be required to leave the bar until himself or should be received together; but if it should turn out that his counsel had been heard in argument in support of any they were disconnected, he should then renew his mo-motion he had made. He thought it due to the accused to allow him that opportunity.

tion.

The question being now put, leave was granted to the accused to make a motion by his counsel.

Mr. McDUFFIE said that if there was any question which could arise in the course of this investigation, which that House owed to its own dignity to decide, without an argument from the counsel of the accused, it was the present question.

The question being put, it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 91, nays 89.

Mr. KEY then said that the motion he was about to make was necessary as preliminary to an inquiry. A citizen of the United States was at the bar of the House for trial. The result might deeply affect his honor and his liberty, and it did not require any prefatory remarks from him to show that he was entitled to as fair and impar-| Mr. IRVIN now said that he hoped the House would tial trial by the high tribunal before which he stood, as he not entertain the motion of the accused. He had already would be before any other tribunal. In order to a fair trial, remarked that he had never heard till now of a challenge it was necessary that his triers should be impartial: that being made to a member of the court. The proposition they should not have prejudged the case: that they should was novel in its character; yet as novel as it might appear, not come to the trial with hostile feelings towards the it had been made, and the members of that House were accused; and as no juror was allowed to act who had al-gravely called upon to say that their fellows should retire ready expressed an opinion on the facts and merits of the from their seats, on a challenge for opinions expressed by case, so he hoped that no gentleman who had formed them in the House, or elsewhere. In the courts, chaland openly expressed an opinion unfavorable to the ac-lenges to jurors were made either for cause or for favor, cused, and which went to show that he had prejudged first for cause. But what was the cause here? For a parthe case, should be admitted to sit as a judge upon his ticular interest in this inquiry? Were they not all equally guilt or innocence. There was a member of that House interested in it? Could it be for favor? Of what characwho, as the accused believed, had formed and publicly ter could favor be brought home to a member, so that forty expressed an opinion on the case. He therefore respect thousand freemen should, through their representative, fully moved that no gentleman who had so expressed an be marched from the floor of that House, and deprived of opinion, should be permitted to retain a seat when the their privileges in his person? question was to be decided.

Mr. ARCHER now moved that the accused and his counsel withdraw.

Mr. CARSON suggested that the name of the individual alluded to should first be given.

Mr. MITCHELL, of South Carolina, and Mr. DANIEL expressed their hope that the name would not be given. The CHAIR required the motion of counsel to be reduced to writing.

Mr. COOKE, of Ohio, inquired of the Chair whether it was still in order to discuss the question whether such a motion might be made.

The SPEAKER replied that that question had been decided.

Mr. MITCHELL (not having heard Mr. CooкE) made a similar inquiry, and received the same reply.

Mr. I. would make use of no expression which could justly implicate him as one of the triers, but he could not see the justice of disgracing one of his brothers on that floor by a temporary expulsion from the House. He objected to the entertaining of the motion, as being novel, and, he might be permitted to add, disrespectful to the House. It could not but be viewed in that light, when a judge was gravely asked to permit a motion that he should march off of the bench. If the motion should be agreed to, how many of the members would it embrace in its consequences? They had ali voted on one side or other, in the commencement of this affair, and if one was to go, all the others must; and thus would be presented to the world the very novel spectacle of a Congress of the United States publicly engaged in purging itself.

Mr. CRAWFORD thought the question a very import The COUNSEL having reduced his motion to writing, ant one. It was a question not concerning the dignity of and forwarded it to the Chair, the SPEAKER pronounced the House, but concerning the liberty of the citizen. It it not to be the same with that which he had verbally was, in fact, the question whether an accused man should made. It contained the name of the individual, which be impartially tried or not. In a question of this kind, the verbal motion had not expressed. involving constitutional rights, Mr. C. would not look at

Mr. WAYNE said he hoped the motion would not be the dignity of any body. He had as high a regard to the received in that form. rights of the House, and to his own dignity, as any man; The SPEAKER decided that it could not. He had un-but the individual in behalf of whom this motion had been derstood the counsel as moving for the abstract right of made, surely had the same rights as would belong to a fechallenging for cause, but the name being introduced, lon at the bar, and the House would do him the same jusmade it an entirely different proposition. tice. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. IRVIN] had told the

APRIL 18, 1832.]

Case of Samuel Houston.

[H. OF R.

House that he had been long acquainted with judicial pro- inhabitants of the Union? Till a member had been tried ceedings, and never heard before of a judge being chal- and expelled, no vote of that House could deprive him of lenged; but the gentleman ought to recollect that, in a the right to act in all the capacities for which he had been proceeding like this, the situation of members was pecu- sent there. liar. They were both judges and jurors. In criminal Mr. ADAMS said that his colleague had already hinted cases juries determined both the law and the fact. What the ground on which he should give his vote. He should was it that House had to determine? Whether the charge vote against the motion, because the House had no power made against Samuel Houston was true or not. This was to do what the counsel of the accused had requested. It a question of fact, and, in trying it, they exercised the amounted to a call upon the House to expel one of its function of jurors. If they found the accusation to be members. It would be an expulsion quo ad hoc. Let him true, the next inquiry was, what should be the punish-suppose the House would entertain the motion, and the ment? In settling that question, they acted as judges. A member alluded to should be named. The member might jury in court was situated precisely as the members of that House were at present.

deny what the counsel averred. What would follow then? That the House, instead of trying the accused, would be called upon to try one of its own members, to ascertain whether he had expressed such an opinion as was alleged. That trial might consume a whole day, and if the House should proceed to expel him, then the ingenious counsel might advance a similar charge against another member; and if he, too, should be expelled, they might proceed in the same manner, until at length a minority of the House might be called upon to expel the majority. Mr. A. would not consent to a motion involving a false principle, and pregnant with such consequences.

Mr. C. said that he neither knew nor cared any thing about the matter of this challenge. His whole anxiety was, that the trial should be so conducted as to leave no room hereafter for its being said that the House had passed upon and prejudged the case before the accused was put on his trial. As to the idea of its being improper to deprive forty thousand freemen of a representative on that floor, during this trial, if the allegation was true that any member had committed himself in the manner referred to by the defendant's counsel, the blame of such deprivation would rest, not upon the House, but upon him. If his Mr. THOMPSON, of Georgia, wished to offer a single constituents had entrusted him with their interests, and he remark, in reply to the gentleman from Massachusetts. had been guilty of the indiscretion of making up and de- All that the accused asked for was, that he might have a claring his mind before he had heard the testimony, at his fair and impartial trial. Whatever was necessary to this door lay the misfortune of his constituents, in being march-end, Mr. T. would assent to, without stopping to look at ed out of the House. Mr. C. would never go to the trial of consequences. When a proposition submitted by him was any man, if he could avoid it, while some of those who right in itself, he should act upon it, without considering were to pass upon his guilt or innocence were not in a where it would lead. He should vote in favor of the mosituation to do him justice. tion, because he believed it essential to the obtaining of a fair and impartial trial.

Mr. McDUFFIE said he rose to express the hope that the question would be taken without further debate. Mr. BURGES expressed his regret that the counsel of Every gentleman there had something within his own the accused had found it necessary to make a motion which breast that would enable him to decide a question like every one must know would result in nothing, unless it were this. Some would incline to the one side, and others to in giving to the accused a pretext for saying that he had the opposite, but he did not think it was a proper ques-not had a fair trial. He must have known that it was not tion for argument.

Mr. ELLSWORTH observed that the language of the motion did not intimate that any member had expressed an opinion on the merits of the case, but only a general opinion unfavorable to the accused.

Mr. COOKE, of Ohio, asked for the reading of the counsel's motion, and it was read accordingly.

Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts, said that he did not rise to discuss the question. He had voted against the motion for withdrawing the defendant from the bar, because he had been anxious to hear what argument could be brought forward to show that that House ought to turn a member out of it. If any thing could be said for such a motion, he wished to hear some gentleman of ingenuity argue it. But, as he should not himself wish to go into the question, he asked for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were thereupon ordered.

Mr. CARSON said that he might possibly be the individual alluded to by the counsel, as well as any other member. He had desired to know the name of the individual alluded to, but the House had not permitted. If he was the person intended, he should ask to be excused from serving.

competent for the House to expel a member from his seat. And had it come to this, that in a judicial proceeding the members of that House would be unable to administer jus tice without allowing themselves to be carried away by improper feelings? that they could not approach the discharge of such a duty under a sense of the high responsi bility which they owed to the country? Who, among them, was it that ought to be asked to say to his brother, "Stand by thyself, for in this matter I am holier than thou!" He regretted that such a motion should be thought necessary any where, especially before that House.

Mr. ARCHER stated that he had received a communication from the accused, stating that he wished to withdraw the motion before the House; when, after a few remarks from Mr. BELL and Mr. WAYNE,

On motion of Mr. WAYNE, permission was given, and Mr. Houston having again been placed at the bar,

Mr. KEY asked leave of the House to withdraw the motion which he had made. He accompanied his request with a few remarks, when the question was put, and car. ried, nem. con. Whereupon, the motion was withdrawn.

The SPEAKER then inquired whether Mr. Houston was prepared to proceed in the trial. To which he replied in the affirmative.

Mr. DODDRIDGE said that the framing of the motion exhibited the ingenuity of a professional man. It had been so drawn up as to entrap the House into the expression of an opinion on an abstract proposition; and if they assent-ed ed to it, they might rest assured that the motion would be followed up by challenges against, perhaps, a majority of

the House.

The letter of Mr. STANBERRY was then read. The SPEAKER then put the first interrogatory, directby order of the House, yesterday, as follows: Do you admit or deny that you assaulted and beat the said Stanberry, as he has represented in the letter which has been read, a copy of which has been delivered to you

Mr. DEARBORN said that the question was superero- by the order of the House? gatory. The House had no right to grant such a motion. It could not be maintained for a moment. What power the interrogatory for him; whereupon, or what authority had they to disfranchise a portion of the

The accused replied that his counsel would respond to

Mr. KEY read from a paper, substantially, as follows:

H. OF R.]

Case of Samuel Houston.

[APRIL 18, 1832.

He denies the charge in the form in which it was set forth; he Mr. WHITTLESEY, of Ohio, moved a further amendadmits that he felt great indignation on reading the remarks ment: that the bond be taken for the appearance "from of Mr. STANBERRY, as reported in the Intelligencer, charg- time to time." ing him with offences derogatory to his honor and character, Mr. WILDE, of Georgia, said, the House, by refusing of which he was innocent. He says that he inquired of Mr. to adjourn, indicated, he presumed, a determination to S. if the report truly set forth what he had said, which decide the motion. If he might judge by what he heard inquiry Mr. S. refused to answer. He admits that he was around him, many gentlemen on the impulse of the mogreatly excited by the manner of this refusal, and did, on ment-a most amiable, but, as he thought, a most mistaken accidentally meeting with Mr. S., beat him. He says that impulse-were inclined to adopt it. To him it seemed little he himself was armed only with an ordinary walking less than a virtual surrender of the whole question, a stick; that Mr. S. was armed with pistols; that he met him practical abandonment of the freedom of debate. He several hours after the House had adjourned, half a mile yielded to no one in regard for the liberty of the citizen, from the capitol, and on the side of the street opposite that but could never permit his sympathy for any individual or of Mr. S.'s lodgings. He denies that in what passed he in- body of men, sect, or party, to make him forget what tended to commit a contempt against the House, or a was due to the public. He felt it was his first duty to susbreach of the privileges of its members. He denies that tain the safeguards of well regulated freedom. If it were the act involves such a contempt or breach; and is pre- possible to bail the respondent, without tacitly giving up pared to justify his conduct, as far as the House is con- the power of protecting their proceedings from interrupcerned, by proof and argument. tion, he would gladly see it done.

The second interrogatory was then put to the accused by the SPEAKER, as follows:

Do you admit or deny that the said assault and beating were done for and on account of words spoken by the said Stanberry in the House of Representatives in debate? To which the accused replied that the response given to the first interrogatory embraced an answer to the second, and he declined giving any other.

Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts, alluding to the absence of Mr. STANBERRY, moved that the further prosecution of the trial be suspended until to-morrow, at twelve o'clock. Mr. VANCE stated that Mr. STANBERRY was able to attend whenever it might be necessary. The motion was agreed to.

But in his judgment, the moment bail was taken, the House lost the power of enforcing its authority, and became dependent on other branches of the Government for protection, and of course for existence. To whom was a recognisance to be given? Where was the prescribed form? Who had authority to take it? How or where, by what process, and through what officers, was a compliance with its condition to be enforced? How would it be estreated, and the penalty recovered?

He did not ask these questions to intimate that, if a recognisance were taken from the respondent, there was any danger it would be forfeited. He desired to be understood as entertaining and suggesting no such apprehension. But the decision they were then about making Mr. Houston and his counsel having retired, would grow into a precedent, and settle a principle--a Mr. DAVIS, on account of ill health, requested to be most important one. Cases might arise where recogniexcused from serving on the committee appointed to su-sances would be forfeited. How were their officers to perintend the examination of witnesses, and was excused compel the sureties to comply with their obligations to accordingly. produce the body of the principal? If they neglected or refused, what was the remedy? A bond given to an officer, he apprehended, unless there was some statute authorizing him to take it, was void. The resolution proposed that the bond or recognisance should be given to the Sergeant-at-Arms. Would that be a public or a private, an official or an individual bond? Could not the Sergeantat-Arms release it? Was he a corporation sole? Could his Mr. CARSON moved an adjournment; upon which successor prosecute it? All these were questions not unquestion

On motion of Mr. DAVIS, Mr. Joseph Gales, junior, was appointed to take down the testimony.

Mr. CONNER offered a resolution, directing the release of Governor Houston on his entering into security for his appearance before the House.

The SPEAKER said the resolution was not in order; and

worthy of some consideration. Yet it was not these matMr. SLADE demanded the yeas and nays; which were ters of detail, however important or embarrassing, that ordered: thereupon, had attracted his attention. It was the great principle Mr. CARSON withdrew his motion for adjournment; which superseded them all. If the House possessed any and, after some discussion, power at all to protect its own proceedings, and to secure Mr. CONNER moved that the rule of the House should to the people, through their immediate representatives, a be suspended, under the circumstances of this case, in order full and free expression of opinion on that floor, it was a to enable him to offer his resolution for the discharge of great paramount power, inherent in the House, and sus Governor Houston upon giving security. ceptible of execution by the House. It must not depend Leave being given by the House, the resolution was for its efficiency on any extraneous aid, judicial or execu read; whereupon, tive, nor could it be defeated or impaired by any subor Mr. DICKSON, of New York, said, if this could be dinate or co-ordinate authority. shown to be the usual course in such case, he would have So long as the respondent remained in the custody of no objections to the resolution being adopted, but he had an officer of the House, every order it passed might be great doubts that such had ever been the practice. He enforced. But if a bond were to be taken, prescribed never heard of any such instance, wherein bail had been by no law, pursuing no established form, given to no autaken for the appearance of a person brought before the thorized officer, and incapable of being prosecuted by House of Commons in England, or our own House of any process known to the rules and orders of that House, Representatives. To whom, he might ask, was the bond it might be otherwise. Upon a breach of the condition to be executed--to the Speaker? If so, how could the of a recognisance for the appearance of the respondent, Speaker proceed to enforce the collection if the bond it would not be seriously contended that the House could was forfeited? A gentleman responded, "to the Sergeant- attach the sureties. Would it be said they could give at-Arms." Mr. D. did not know such a course had ever judgment and award execution? If not, what was the been adopted. result? They must call some court to their assistance. Mr. IRVIN moved, as an amendment, that "the Speak- The court might decide the bond to be void. They might er should be empowered to judge of the sufficiency of decline jurisdiction. If they ever awarded judgment, the security, and the mode in which the bond should be had gentlemen well considered how far the Executive given."

power might then interfere to remit the penalty? He
would not be construed to assert or insinuate that the pre-
sent Chief Magistrate, or any former President of the
United States, were capable of doing so.
Such a suppo
sition was inconsistent with the high respect which he
professed, and he trusted had exhibited, to all whom the
confidence of their fellow-citizens had called to that dis-
tinguished station. But it was well remarked, men were
saved in this world, not by faith, but by the want of it:
and never, with his consent, should the freedom of de-
bate depend upon judicial discretion, or the pardoning
power. Better let their own hands keep their own heads,
than allow themselves to be weighed and guarded, in
scales and by a sword not theirs. This was all he had
risen to say; and if the question had seemed to him about
to be maturely considered, he would not have intruded
himself on the attention of the House to say even this.
Mr. ARCHER said, according to the rule of the British
Parliament, it was not usual to take bail for the appear-
ance of any person who had been committed by order of
any of the Houses to the custody of the Usher. He was
perfectly disposed, if possible, to grant the discharge of
the accused, but he saw no mode in which it could be
done securely, or by which the obligation could not be
rendered void.

[H. of R.

He then resumed, and continued his remarks, until they were cut short by the expiration of the hour.

CASE OF SAMUEL HOUSTON.

The SPEAKER informed the House that, under the resolution adopted yesterday, Mr. Gales had consented to act as stenographer on the trial of Samuel Houston. The hour of twelve having arrived,

Mr. CONNER submitted the following resolution, viz. Resolved, That Samuel Houston be released from the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, on giving security for his appearance at the bar of this House from day to day, and from time to time, until the termination of his trial; the amount of security and terms of the bond to be prescribed by the Speaker of this House.

Mr. C. disclaimed all wish to embarrass the House, but, considering the question as important, he was desirous of getting an expression of opinion upon it. He thought, if the House had power to deprive à citizen of his liberty, it must certainly have power, also, to restore it, on sufficient security. He had offered the same resolution yesterday; but had then withdrawn it, under the expectation that a bill would be introduced, containing a general provision for such cases. As, however, that had been objected to, he now moved the resolution again.

to attain it.

Mr. CONNER did not expect this resolution would have Mr. MITCHELL, of South Carolina, approved the oboccasioned so much discussion. His only object in intro-ject of the resolution, but did not like the mode proposed ducing it was under the expectation that the House was authorized to take bail for appearance as other courts of Mr. M. said that having examined precedents, he found justice could do in all cases of assault and battery; and he that the course hitherto pursued had always been, first to must think it strange that the House could have power to summon the accused person, and, on default of his aporder the arrest, and yet their power to liberate on bail pearing, then to issue a capias, but never in the first inshould be denied. On the whole, however, understand-stance. He moved to amend Mr. CoNNER's resolution by ing that a bill would be carried through the House to ef-striking out all after the word Resolved, and inserting that fect the object, he would, though with great reluctance, Samuel Houston be discharged from custody. withdraw the motion.

The motion was accordingly withdrawn. Mr. ADAMS said it was customary, in all cases of the kind, to have a committee appointed to examine into precedents; for which purpose, he would move that the present committee should be further authorized to examine the precedents in the cases of breach of privilege; but he subsequently withdrew his motion on request; and The House adjourned.

Mr. DICKSON, of New York, took the floor in opposition both to the resolution and amendment. He went into a statement of precedents drawn from the history of the British Parliament since 1550. Three modes had been pursued. During the middle and the close of the sixteenth century, the course had been to apply to the King, praying that he, by his Attorney General, would cause the offender to be prosecuted. Afterwards, it had been common to summon the delinquent to the bar of the House. But since the sixteenth century, that mode had been discontinued, and the course ever since pursued had been to arrest the offender in the first instance. As examples, Mr. D. quoted the case of the Earl of Shaftes bury in 1677, of Sir Alexander Murray in 1671, and of Mr. PLUMMER resumed the floor, and continued his Sir Francis Burdett in 1810. In the last case, actions had observations in support of the motion; in the course of been brought against the Sergeant-at-Arms and the Speakwhich, he quoted and commented upon the speech of Mr. er; but the court had sustained the power of the House, STANBERRY, of Ohio, on the opposite side. Having, in as it had previously done in the case of Murray, when the some of his remarks, intimated that Mr. S. had "fabricat-decision was that the court had no power to inquire into the ed charges" without "a shadow of foundation in truth," prerogatives of the House; the House of Commons being he was called to order by Mr. S.

THURSDAY, APRIL 19.

The case of the Wiscasset collector coming up as the unfinished business,

His words were taken down by Mr. COOKE, of Ohio, and read to him. He denied the accuracy of Mr. C.'s statement, and repeated the remarks he had made.

above the judges of England. Mr. D. then referred to precedents in our own country. He quoted two cases in the State of New York, in one of which an individual had early in the session been arrested by the New York Legislature, for challenging De Witt Clinton, and imprisoned till the session terminated. He then discussed the cases in the House of Representatives, of Randall and Whitney, and Mr. STANBERRY thereupon moved that Mr. PLUM-of Anderson; in the latter of which, the Supreme Court MER do not proceed further in his remarks, without the leave of the House.

The CHAIR pronounced the remarks to be out of order, and said that, if he had heard them when spoken, he should have instantly called the gentleman to order.

The question was put, whether Mr. PLUMMER should have leave to proceed, and decided in the affirmative. Mr. PLUMMER resumed; but was soon after again called to order.

Mr. STANBERRY having remarked that the gentleman was beneath his notice, and that of the House,

Mr. PLUMMER was commencing to reply with some vehemence, when he was again called to order by the CHAIR.

had sanctioned the proceeding of the House. Relying on these precedents, Mr. D. hoped that the motion would be rejected.

Mr. SPEIGHT, after expressing his anxiety that the trial should proceed, suggested to his colleague the propriety of withdrawing his motion for the present; and

Mr. CONNER consenting, the motion was withdrawn.
Mr. Houston was again placed at the bar.

The SPEAKER asked him if he was ready to proceed in the trial, and he answered in the affirmative; whereupon,

H. OF R.]

Case of Samuel Houston.

[APRIL 19, 1832.

Mr. COULTER, from the Committee on Privileges, and a dirk; and on the morning on which the answer was moved that Mr. STANBERRY be now sworn, and called sent, I was prepared to meet Mr. Houston, if he should upon for his testimony. assault me. In the evening, at my lodgings, I received a

The motion being agreed to, Mr. STANBERRY was note from a gentleman of the name of McCarty, of Indiana, sworn, in the usual form, to testify, &c. (not the member of this House,) informing me that he had [The testimony in the case is spread on the Journal of something of importance which he wished to communithe House. In the following notices of the trial, such parts of the testimony only are introduced as are necessary to elucidate the debate on the different questions which arose.]

Mr. STANBERRY then testified as follows:

On the 4th of this month, Mr. CAVE JOHNSON, a member of this House, presented to me a note from Mr. Houston, which I believe is now in possession of my colleague, [Mr. CREIGHTON, of Ohio,] which I request may be handed to the Chair, so that it may be read.

The letter was handed to the Chair, and was read, and is as follows:

WASHINGTON CITY, April 3, 1832. SIR: I have seen some remarks in the National Intelligencer of the 2d instant, in which you are represented to have said: "Was the late Secretary of War removed in consequence of his attempt fraudulently to give to Go

vernor Houston the contract for Indian rations?"

cate. Subsequently, he told me that, being in the room of Mr. TIPTON, of Indiana, he had heard some gentleman, whose name he did not mention, declare he had heard Houston say that he intended to shoot me in the street, and to have a man whose name, I believe, was Armstrong, of Tennessee, in company with him. Mr. McCarty, I believe, communicated the same information to Mr. EwING, who came to the House with me next day, and I was prepared with my pistols cocked to defend myself; but I did not meet with Mr. Houston that day, though I saw him within the House. I expected every time I went out of, or came into, this Hall, to meet him, and I was always prepared for such an event. My object in desiring the com. pany of Mr. EwING, was to have a respectable witness present, who was not to interfere between me and Mr. Houston, unless his own judgment should dictate it. I was unwilling that any thing between us should depend upon the testimony of such witnesses as Mr. Houston might have in his company. I continued prepared for the Houston never had an intention to attack me, or had reexpected meeting until I began to think either that Mr. linquished it; but still kept a pistol in my pocket. On Mrs. Queen's, on the south side of the Avenue,) I left Friday night, at eight o'clock, (premising that I reside at Mrs. Queen's, crossed the Avenue, and stepped on the side walk near Mr. Elliot's, having one pistol in my pocket Hon. WILLIAM STANBERRY, M. C. not cocked, having no expectation of meeting Mr. HousThat letter was presented to me in this Hall. At the moment of stepping on the side walk, Mr. I do not Houston stood before me. I think he called me by my remember whether the session of the House had com-name, and instantly struck me with the bludgeon he had menced or not; and a desire was expressed by Mr. JoHN-in his hand with great violence, and he repeated the blow SON for a speedy answer to it. On the same day I wrote while I was down; he struck me repeatedly with great an answer, dated the 4th of April, but not presented until violence. I was either knocked down or thrown in the next day; which I handed to Mr. CREIGHTON, requesting scuffle, I do not know which; while down, turning on my Mr. CREIGHTON, before presenting it, to ascertain whether Mr. JOHNSON was acquainted with the contents of the note of Mr. Houston. That letter I wish to have read for the

The object of this note is to ascertain whether my name was used by [you] in debate; and, if so, whether your remarks have been correctly quoted.

As the remarks were inserted in anticipation of their regular place, "I hope you will find it convenient to reply without delay."

I am, your most obedient servant,
SAMUEL HOUSTON.

information of the House.

The letter was read, and is as follows:

"HALL OF REPRESENTATIVES, April 4, 1832. "SIR: I received this morning, by your hands, a note signed Samuel Houston, quoting from the National Intelligencer of the 2d instant a remark made by me in the House. The object of the note is "to ascertain whether Mr. Houston's name was used by me in debate, and whether my remarks were correctly quoted."

"I cannot recognise the right of Mr. Houston to make this request. Very respectfully, yours, &c.

"WILLIAM STANBERRY.

"The Hon. CAVE JOHNSON."

ton.

He

right side, I got my hand in my pocket, and got my pistol and cocked it; I watched an opportunity while he was striking me with great violence, and pulled the trigger, aiming at his breast; the pistol did not go off; I thought it did not snap, but I have since understood it did. wrested the pistol from my hand, and, after some more blows, he left me. In reply to something which I said, I do not distinctly recollect what, Houston said "I had assailed him, and that he would be answerable to the laws of his country for what he had done.”

Question by the committee.-Was any person or persons present with Mr. Houston, or near to him, when the blow was first inflicted?

Answer.--There was one individual; the transaction was so hurried, and the assault was so immediate, that I did not recognise him; the blow was inflicted by Houston instantly on my recognising him. I think there was another with him, but he appeared to me to be standing still.

Mr. CREIGHTON, I understand, presented the note which has been read, to Mr. JOHNSON, in this Hall. Some time on the same day, Mr. JOHNSON came to me, and, after lamenting I had not thought fit to address an answer to Mr. Houston, said that, after consultation with his friends, he had come to the determination to have nothing further to do with the matter himself, and had handed the note to correctness of such imputation? Mr. Houston, to take his own course. On the evening of the day on which I received the note from Mr. Houston, and before sending the answer, I had a consultation with some of my friends, who agreed with me upon the answer which was sent. It was the opinion of one of my friends [Mr. EWING, of Ohio] that it was proper I should be armed; that, immediately upon the reception of my note, Mr. Houston would probably make an assault upon me. Mr. EwING accordingly procured for me a pair of pistols

[After some further evidence by Mr. S.]

Question by the accused (to Mr. Stanberry.)--These re marks, thus published, impute a fraud to the accused; had you then, or have you now, any and what evidence of the

To this interrogatory Mr. DICKSON, one of the members from the State of New York, objected.

And the question being taken--Shall the said interro gatory be put? It passed in the affirmative--yeas 101, nays 82.

Mr. STANBERRY then proceeded to answer as follows: General Houston. "It was no part of my intention to impute fraud to His name was mentioned, merely that the transaction to which I alluded might be identified.