H. OF R.] Case of Samuel Houston. [APRIL 21, 1832. Mr. ARNOLD said that no objection had been made at but that other members must put their questions through the time the motion was offered: and permission had been the Speaker. The committee desired him to say that given to make the correction. they considered themselves as destitute of all power to The CHAIR replied that the motion was objected to manage the prosecution. He hoped, therefore, that the by the gentleman from Indiana. gentleman would amend his resolution by substituting Mr. COOKE, of Ohio, asked, if the House was not the "to examine witnesses" instead of "to manage the procomplainant, who was. Mr. STANBERRY had laid his state-secution." the House and the respondent. ment of the facts before the Speaker, and the Speaker had Mr. HALL said that he had no objections. If gentlesubmitted it to the House: the House had then ordered men would aid him to repress the exuberance of talk, he Mr. Houston to be arrested. The case now lay between should be glad to do so in any form most agreeable to others. He went for substance only. But if something Mr. SPEIGHT said he rose to request the gentleman was not done speedily, he should feel it his duty to call up from Indiana to withdraw his motion. All the facts had the resolution offered by his colleague, [Mr. CONNER,] to gone forth to the world, and all understood who was the enlarge the accused. The delay of justice was the same complainant; the language of the journal was of little as the denial of it. Mr. H. said that he had had his views consequence. much shaken as to the propriety of the present proceeding. To what condition were they reduced? The House had restrained the liberty of the individual accused, yet he heard it suggested, and from sources he greatly respected, that they could not liberate him on bail: while, at the same time, they had the power to dismiss him entirely. Mr. BOON replied that the remarks of his friend from North Carolina were so forcible that he would withdraw his objection. Mr. HALL, of North Carolina, asked and obtained leave to submit the following resolution: Mr. REED said that, to avoid useless discussion, he would move to lay the resolution on the table. Mr. HALL, on that question, asked the yeas and nays. Mr. WICKLIFFE asked Mr. REED to withdraw the motion for a moment. Mr. REED having consented, Mr. WICKLIFFE offered a modification of the resolu tion. "Resolved, That no member of the House, except the committee appointed for the management of the trial now pending before the House, be permitted to discuss questions pertaining to the trial of Samuel Houston, until the examination of witnesses is closed; that all questions be propounded through the committee in writing, and that the members of the committee alone, on the part of the House, be allowed to object to, or discuss, the relevancy or irrelevancy of testimony; thus precluding any further debate upon the decision of such questions or objections. Mr. ADAMS said he should vote to lay the resolution Mr. HALL observed that he would not long delay the on the table, inasmuch as there was no such committee in proceedings of the House in the pending trial. It must the House. be evident to all that it would be impossible to get on with the present broad-cast indulgence of loquacity; they would not get through, at this rate, in a month. He would ask gentlemen seriously to turn their attention to the state of things, and to see if it was not necessary to provide some remedy. Mr. WICKLIFFE said that, if the gentleman would modify his resolution so that members should be inhibited from raising questions pending the examination of witnesses, he should have no objection: but he could not consent to their being prevented afterwards. If the gentleman would confine the right to discussing questions to the members of the committee, in such a manner that it should be the act of the committee, very well: but he must object to having members of the committee discussing questions among themselves. Mr. ELLSWORTH observed that there were a few cases where they were called to decide questions without debate, but they were cases where no debate was needed, such as motions to adjourn, to lay on the table, &c.; but where the House was called on to decide on vital questions, he could not consent to take the power of debate from the House, and leave it to a few other individuals. There were cases where it might be proper; but not such cases as involved great and vital principles, and where the yeas and nays were recorded. Mr. DODDRIDGE suggested a modification, which was not heard by the reporter. Mr. HALL said that, as the modification obviated the difficulty he wished to remedy, he would withdraw his resolution. Mr. WICKLIFFE thereupon offered the following resolution: Resolved, That no member of the House shall be permitted to debate questions growing out of the examination of witnesses, and the introduction of testimony on the trial of the case of Samuel Houston; that the right to object to the introduction of evidence, and debate questions arising thereon, shall be confined to the committee already appointed, who shall be authorized to conduct the examination, and discuss questions arising upon the introduction of testimony on the part of the House. Mr. KERR said, the reluctance he always felt to troubling the House, had prevented him from offering some observations he had wished to make on the proposition of the gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. HALL,] now withdrawn. He had equally solid objections to that now of fered by the gentleman from Kentucky. Mr. WICKLIFFE expressed a wish to withdraw his resolution if it led to any debate. Mr. KERR said he would willingly consent to its withdrawal, but for the course he had witnessed since this proceeding commenced. As soon as an objectionable proposition was offered, and the yeas and nays ordered upon it, the resolution was instantly withdrawn. His indisposition to speak had prevented him hitherto from stating bis Mr. HUNTINGTON said that being himself one of the objections; but it should do so no longer. He considered Committee on Privileges, he should not discuss the resolu- these attempts to stop debate, by any but the Committee tion: but the gentleman had introduced some words into on Privileges, an attempt to exercise a power which was it, which made it incumbent on him to state that the gen- not constitutional. If debate became excessive, they had tleman from North Carolina misunderstood the duties of a remedy by the previous question. But when the liberthe committee. The resolution spoke of them as a com- ties of members of that House and of their constituents mittee appointed "to manage the present trial on the part were involved, debate should not be confined to a few inof the House." They were not appointed for that duty; dividuals who had been selected only for the greater faciand he thought the House had had sufficient evidence of lity of putting questions to the witnesses. Had they not that fact. The only power confided to the committee was seen that House almost equally divided as to the propriety to put questions to the witnesses. No other difference of calling any man to an account for such an act as had existed between them and other members of the House, taken place? And would members now deprive them APRIL 21, 1832.] Case of Samuel Houston. [H. OF R. selves of the power of debate? Mr. K. said that he for as he understood it to be a certificate, intended to supply one was not disposed to exercise the right in his own per- a defect in the formula of the affidavit, and as it could not son; but, sitting there as one of the representatives of the have formed any part of the grounds on which the genpeople, he was anxious to hear discussion by every mem-tleman had acted in the debate. It was certainly incomber, and anxious, too, for his own right to discuss any petent for him to correct the defect now, when he was question, if he should think proper to do so. He was op-called upon to state the grounds on which he had acted in posed to both the propositions which had been offered on imputing a fraud to the respondent. this subject, and should oppose all of a similar kind that might be offered. Mr. WICKLIFFE begged pardon of the House, and hoped to be forgiven. He had now risen to withdraw his resolution, and should endeavor to set a good example by abstaining from all debate upon it. Mr. PLUMMER asked leave of the House to explain an error into which the reporters had fallen, in reference to some remarks of his yesterday. It being objected to, Mr. WHITTLESEY observed that the respondent's counsel had taken an exception to the affidavit of Blake, because it had no date. But the witness had been required to produce such evidence as he had at the time he uttered the charge of fraud in the House, or at the time when the interrogatory was put to him. He now offered the certificate of a magistrate, going to correct the error in form of the paper he had before produced. The magistrate, Mr. W. understood, declared in this certificate that the mistake had been his own. This paper might become maaffidavit. It did seem to him that with this explanation the counsel would withdraw his objections. Mr. THOMPSON, of Georgia, moved to have the rule terial, in order to obviate the objection of counsel to the suspended. Mr. ELLSWORTH asked what was the object. Cries were heard of "out of order," "no, no," "let him go on," "order." The SPEAKER put the question, and the rule was thereupon suspended. Mr. PLUMMER expressed regret that he should have caused any excitement in the House. He then went on to state that in the Intelligencer of that morning he was reported to have charged the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. STANBERRY] with having fabricated certain charges which were without a shadow of foundation in truth. He had made no such charge. He had said, on the contrary, that he could not believe that the gentleman from Ohio would fabricate a long string of false charges against any one, and, as he could not believe this, that his confidence in the Government had been shaken. He had not charged the member in the manner stated, and he hoped he never should. The accused was then put to the bar. The CHAIR inquired of the respondent whether he was ready to proceed in the trial. And he responded in the affirmative. Mr. STANBERRY said he understood that the date of the affidavit he had yesterday offered in evidence had been omitted; he now wished to present a statement of the magistrate before whom it had been taken. The CHAIR having put the question whether this paper should be received, Mr. KEY observed that, as the affidavit of Mr. Blake had been read, he should no longer object to its being received; but, inasmuch as it had been read as evidence, he should claim his right to discredit it. He withdrew his objection to the affidavit of Mr. Blake. Mr. STANBERRY then offered the paper he had referred to. Mr. BURGES was surprised to hear gentlemen talk of the affidavit having no date. They must know that the facts must have been anterior to the time of taking the affidavit. It might have no certificate of date, but it was given, and had a date; and the question when it was taken did not touch its validity or credibility. The question was not, when did it come into existence? but, was it true? If the House determined not to hear when it did come into existence, they ought not to insist upon their ignorance of that fact as an objection to the affidavit. Those who wished to know about it, would be satisfied by this certificate; those who did not wish this, would not be satisfied at any rate. Mr. CARSON thought the question might be easily settled by adverting to the form of the interrogatory put to the witness. After quoting the words of it, Mr. C. proceeded to observe that, if the House permit evidence to be hunted up, and brought there every day, when would the trial end? The witness had told the House that he had received this paper this morning. The objection of counsel to the affidavit had been withdrawn; where then was the necessity of producing the paper to meet the objection which the respondent's counsel had withdrawn? He hoped the House would not receive the certificate. Mr. FELDER rose to order. If the House did not adhere to the rules they had laid down, he could not see when they would get through the trial. He then quoted the rule. The CHAIR replied that this was not an objection by a member of the House, but by the counsel for the accused. It therefore did not come within the rule. Mr. VINTON rose to say that he hoped the House would not get into another debate on such a question. The Mr. KEY said that an ex parte affidavit had been offer- counsel's objection having been withdrawn, it was immaed yesterday; to-day a certificate was offered of a magisterial whether the affidavit was strictly formal or not. He trate residing in the city, and whose personal attendance hoped the witness would have leave to withdraw this pacould be procured. per. He made that motion. Mr. KERR inquired when the certificate had been made. Mr. STANBERRY said it had been handed to him this morning. Mr. KERR objected to its being received, as it could not have influenced the gentleman at the time he made the charge of fraud in his speech, nor can it have been one of the grounds of evidence operating on his mind at the time the interrogatory was proposed. Mr. CREIGHTON asked that it might be read. The House refused permission--yeas 77, nays 90. The question was then put on receiving the certificate. Mr. BATES, of Massachusetts, said that he did not know what was the objection raised, or what was the character of the paper offered. Mr. KERR explained. He had objected to the paper, Mr. KEY said that he would cheerfully withdraw the objection on his part to the introduction of a paper of this kind, if he could do so in consistency with his duty as the advocate of the accused. He did not wish in this cause to avail himself of any nice and merely technical objections, but it might become important to show when and by whom the affidavit had been taken, and under what circumstances. The best evidence that could be produced for that purpose would be the magistrate himself, and those who had been present at the time. He should desire to show by whom it was written; whether it was done with notice, &c. If it shall appear that it had been taken with great precipitancy, without notice, and after the respondent was arrested, all those and other circumstances might have an important bearing in ena H. OF R.] Case of Samuel Houston. [APRIL 23, 1832. bling the House to judge of the degree of credit to volve the collector in a new charge of fraud in the settlewhich it was entitled. His best witness to prove all these ment of his accounts, which Mr. E. accompanied by facts would be the magistrate himself, who could detail all some explanation. The letter was read, and laid upon the the circumstances. As he might himself be produced, table. Mr. K. could not consent to the admission of his certificate. Mr. JARVIS further explained, when Mr. PLUMMER ICThe question was then put, and the witness had leave sumed his remarks; and, after speaking about twenty to withdraw the paper. He withdrew it accordingly. minutes, the hour expired, and the House proceeded to the Mr. STANBERRY was then further examined, both by CASE OF SAMUEL HOUSTON. the respondent's counsel, and by members of the House. On motion of Mr. WHITTLESEY, the journal was The resolution of Mr. H. EVERETT having been read, further corrected by inserting the facts, that Mr. STAN- Mr. EVERETT said that he had offered the resolution BERRY'S speech had been sent for by a member from the late on Saturday evening. The almost immediate adoffice of the Intelligencer; and that when one of the first journment of the House was a sufficient indication to him interrogatories had been propounded to him, and objected that the House would not agree to it. He therefore withto by a member, the witness himself had declared that he drew it. had no objections to answer. Mr. Houston was then put to the bar, and the examin ation of witnesses was resumed. The Hon. FELIX GRUNDY, the Hon. Mr. BUCKNER, and the Hon. Mr. TIPTON, of the Senate, Dr. Haw, and Mr. Shaw, were severally examined. Mr. McDUFFIE offered the following resolution: Resolved, That the committee heretofore appointed to examine witnesses in the case of Samuel Houston be authorized and instructed to investigate the facts of the said case, and report the evidence to the House, with as little The respondent's counsel having put to the last witness delay as possible; and that the said committee be au- an interrogatory as to Luther Blake's habits in respect to thorized to sit during the sessions of this House, to send interperance, for persons and papers, and to examine witnesses on oath. Mr. McD. observed that the expediency of adopting such a resolution, after the experience the House had had yesterday, was so obvious, that he should deem it a great trespass if he said one word in favor of it. Mr. JEWETT opposed the resolution. He hoped that a part of this investigation would not take place in the House, and the residue not also in the House. He must ask for the yeas and nays. Mr. WICKLIFFE said that he did not rise to oppose the prosecution of this inquiry. He did not know Blake, and never had seen him; but he could not sit here, and see the rules of evidence violated with the sanction of that House. He submitted to gentlemen whether, if the design of counsel was to discredit a witness, the question as to his habits of temperance was a proper question. He had known many very honest and creditable men whose habits were not strictly temperate. Mr. KEY said that it did not seem to the accused to be Mr. KEY insisted that the inquiry was a very proper just towards him that a part of the evidence should be one. It had been shown that the affidavit had been taken taken in the most public manner, and that the exculpatory at the instance of Prentiss, and in Prentiss's handwriting; evidence should be taken in a committee room. That ought he not to be allowed to prove that the witness was also should, in justice, be equally public. Many wit-an impotent, drunken man, liable to be made a tool of? nesses were in attendance, and he desired that they There was nothing of his writing in the affidavit but the should have the same public hearing as those on the other side. Mr. McDUFFIE observed, in explanation, that the course proposed in his resolution had been suggested to him by a gentleman who was not disposed to trying the accused at any disadvantage, but rather in a spirit of accommodation to his wishes. Mr. McD., however, should be extremely reluctant to vote for the resolution if the respondent's counsel objected to it. He therefore concluded to withdraw it. Mr. VANCE was next sworn, and examined. Mr. CAVE JOHNSON was then sworn, and examined at length, touching the facts in relation to the notes which had passed previously to the rencontre. signature, and from its face it appeared to have been made in obedience to Prentiss. Blake had left here not on account of his business; but, leaving his business, he had gone suddenly off: was it not proper to inquire what were the habits of Blake? But Mr. WICKLIFFE replied that if the question had been confined to an inquiry into the fact whether Blake was drunk when the affidavit was given, and the witness sworn, he should not object. It would be competent to show that the affidavit was not his act and deed. when the object was to show that Blake was habitually intemperate, Mr. W. must object. He did not know Blake, and never had seen him; but he would not assail the rules of evidence, in order to prove his general intemThe further proceedings were then postponed to perance. The counsel might prove what was his moral twelve o'clock on Monday. character; whether he was entitled to credit; whether he was in the habit of telling the truth; and what was the Resolved, That the committee appointed to examine estimation in which he was held in society. But the counwitnesses on the trial of Samuel Houston be directed to sel could not inquire into any specific vice. Mr. W. was conduct the further prosecution of said trial, on the part constrained to object, from a sense that they were violating of this House, and that the Speaker of this House be di- the rules and principles observed by all tribunals in hearrected to issue subpoenas for such witnesses as said com- ing testimony. Mr. H. EVERETT offered the following resolution: mittee may deem necessary. But, before any action thereon, The House adjourned. MONDAY, APRIL 23. The yeas and nays were ordered, and, being taken, stood as follows-yeas 88, nays 70. A query having been put by the counsel as to what Mr. Prentiss had declared after the respondent had been arrested under the order of the House, Mr. HUNTINGTON said that he should not object to The report of the Committee on the Judiciary, asking this discussion being conducted in a manner perfectly to be discharged from the further consideration of the liberal; but he could not sit and see a witness examined as charges made against the collector of the port of Wiscas- to mere hearsay declarations. He would not, however, set, being again taken up, Mr. PLUMMER yielded the floor detain the House by any argument. to Mr. EVANS, of Maine, who presented a letter from Mc- Mr. KEY said that the inquiry was as to the credit to Clintock, the complainant, against McCrate, the collector be given to an ex parte affidavit of Blake: was it not comat Wiscasset, detailing circumstances which went to in-petent to inquire under what circumstances it had been APRIL 24, 25, 1832.] Case of Samuel Houston. [H. OF R. taken? He was offering in evidence the declarations of had just been committed by the witness, who had uttered Prentiss, in order to show the resentment and bitterness a threat which he presumed was intended for his colleague, by which he was actuated, and his determination to have [Mr. COOKE.] The witness had said that "there would Houston convicted. Was that not proper evidence? Did soon be another brought up before the House," or words it not affect the character of the affidavit? Was not all to that effect. If this was not a breach of the privileges the affidavit in the handwriting of William Prentiss, and of the House, he was at loss to know what could be so taken at his instance? If he could prove the declarations considered. A sensation was created by this statement. of Prentiss, and show why and how the affidavit was Several gentlemen rose to address the Chair. taken, would it not enable the House to judge how far Mr. STANBERRY referred to Mr. SPEIGHT, in confir the affidavit was credible? As it was here, and ex parte, mation of the statement he had made. he should at least prove the declarations of the man at whose instance it had been taken. Mr. HUNTINGTON replied that William Prentiss was not on trial, and was not a witness. When a paper was read, if the party was not in court, no inquiry could be made into the declarations of third persons. Mr. KERR demanded the yeas and nays; and they were ordered. Mr. ADAMS said that, as he objected to the interrogatory, he supposed he might give his reasons. The CHAIR decided that he could not. Mr. ADAMS took an appeal, but, after some conversation, consented to withdraw it. Mr. KEY offered to withdraw the interrogatory. Mr. BURGES objected to its being withdrawn. He considered it a trifling question when it was offered, and after the House had been detained almost an hour in deciding it, then it was withdrawn. He could not consent to have the House so treated. Mr. SPEIGHT inquired whether the gentleman meant to implicate him in the charge. Mr. STANBERRY disclaimed all intention to do so; but said he had called upon him to confirm or to contradict the statement, as he had heard the language used. Mr. SPEIGHT making no further reply, Mr. BATES, of Massachusetts, proposed that the witness be recalled, and required to explain. He thought this due to the witness as well as to the House. Perhaps a different explanation might be given of the words he had used. If any Mr. WICKLIFFE objected to this course. breach of privilege should be committed, the House would take such measures as might become proper; but as the threat uttered (which Mr. W. was far from justifying) had not been uttered on the stand, or intended for the ear of the House, he thought the House would consult its own dignity by taking no order in regard to it. He hoped gentlemen were not going to resolve themselves into conserMr. WAYNE said that, as he understood the rule, un-vators of the peace, and bind over the witness for his good less some member adopted the interrogatory, the counsel behavior. could withdraw it without leave of any one. So, unless No motion being made, the House passed to the examinthe gentleman adopted this trifling interrogatory, it could ation of the other witnesses, until the hour of adjournstill be withdrawn. Mr. BURGES said that he had objected because he could not sanction such a procedure. But as he did not desire to throw any obstacle in the course of proceeding, he would withdraw his objection. ment. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25. The case of Samuel Houston again coming up for Mr. KEY then withdrew the interrogatory. hearing, Mr. ADAMS objected, on the same ground, to another Mr. DODDRIDGE moved to postpone further proceedquery respecting a conversation which passed at Mr.ings in the trial until Friday next, at twelve o'clock. He GRUNDY'S room; but the objection was not sustained by the House. The examination being closed, and the testimony having been read to the witnesses, The further hearing of the case was postponed to eleven o'clock to-morrow; and The House adjourned. TURSDAY, APRIL 24. CASE OF SAMUEL. HOUSTON. The accused was again brought to the bar, and the House proceeded with the examination of witnesses. During the examination of Dr. Davis, of South Carolina, a query was offered by Mr. COOKE, of Ohio, the latter clause of which required the witness to state what was his business in visiting this city. The interrogatory was objected to by several members, and, at the suggestion of Mr. WHITTLESEY, of Ohio, it was withdrawn. On the putting of the question, Dr. Davis manifested some sensation; and when the objection had been raised, he requested that the question might be put, adding that he was ready and willing to reply to it, or to any other inquiry from that gentleman. His object in visiting the city was laudable, and he was ready and willing to state it. On leaving the stand, and as he was in the act of retiring from it to the seats in the lobby, he passed Mr. SPEIGHT, of North Carolina, and some remark passed between them; on hearing which, Mr. STANBERRY (who sat next to Mr. SPEIGHT) immediately rose in his place, and observed that a new act of contempt of the House said that he understood all the testimony had been taken, and that he had consulted the counsel of the accused, who had no objections to such a course. He should accompany his motion with another to print the testimony, wishing the House to possess that preparation which might conduce to prevent much consumption of time in useless debate. Another reason for his motion was a wish not to interfere with the business of the District of Columbia. There were two measures in particular which were of great interest, and on which he hoped the House would act favorably: one was the bill in furtherance of the aqueduct above Georgetown; the other was that for the bridge over the Potomac. If the House was to act at all on these bills, it must act soon, that the early part of the summer might be occupied in prosecuting the proposed works. Mr. STANBERRY observed that there was testimony, material to his character, yet behind; testimony which would go to contradict the testimony already given by Mr. BUCKNER, in all the circumstances of it which were calculated to injure his character, or cast ridicule upon him; and that testimony he was prepared now to produce. Mr. DODDRIDGE withdrew for the present his motion for postponement. Mr. ASHLEY repelled the imputation cast upon the character of Mr. BUCKNER. Mr. A. knew nothing of the transaction in question, but he was convinced Mr. BuckNER had anticipated nothing of the affair, and that whatever he had stated or should state respecting it, was true. Mr. STANBERRY said he wished to state to the House that he should be able to prove, by the honorable Mr. EWING, that, in other conversations, Mr. BUCKNER had re H. or R.] Case of Samuel Houston. [APRIL 25, 1832. lated the circumstances of the affray without any of those Mr. STANBERRY replied that it was not for him to arcircumstances which were calculated to throw disgrace gue this question. The House had allowed the first and ridicule upon him. Mr. EWING was now absent; interrogatory to be put, and thereby determined the quesand he did not know whether he would return to-day. tion for him. Mr. S. said he had not sought this subject. There were also other witnesses, whose names he did not He had been forced into the proof, having been charged yet know, but who would be able to prove that Mr. EwING with making a false accusation. He now offered proof had given a very different account of what Mr. BUCKNER that the accusation was true. He was aware of the reluchad told him, from what that gentleman had delivered tance felt by gentlemen to put themselves forward in such when on examination before the House. a case; he was aware of the danger they must encounter in so doing; he was aware of the threats uttered by the Executive against any member of that House who should dare to question his acts. But he was willing to bare his bosom to the assassins. He pledged himself to the proof of what he had stated: all he asked was compulsory process. Mr. BATES, of Maine, inquired whether the gentleman had intended to be understood as saying that the President of the United States had threatened the safety of any member of that House. Mr. KEY (counsel for Governor Houston) replied that, according to a practice frequent in the courts, the accused would consent to admit what Mr. STANBERRY desired to prove. Mr. STANBERRY not assenting to this proposal, Mr. DODDRIDGE renewed his motion to postpone, but consented to withdraw it. Mr. STANBERRY having stated his wish to have Duff Green examined as a witness, and no objection being made to the motion, Mr. Green was introduced, and sworn; and Mr. STANBERRY having offered the following interrogatory: "What knowledge have you of the late Secretary of War attempting to give to Governor Houston a contract for the supply of Indian rations in 1830?" Mr. STANBERRY replied, “Yes, I did say so; and I am ready with the proof of it." Mr. WICKLIFFE said that it had not been from such considerations as those just referred to, that he had made his objection to the interrogatory, but from a deep conviction of duty. It was not from any objection to an inMr. WICKLIFFE objected to the interrogatory. He vestigation conducted in the proper form. It had not been said he would greatly have preferred that the duty should from any apprehensions as to the consequences, but bebe performed by another; but if no other gentleman would cause he occupied what might be called a neutral position step into his place, he would proceed and give some of the as to this matter, and thought it his duty, as having some reasons which induced him to oppose the question. It regard and some hope as to a possible termination of the must necessarily lead to the investigation of a transaction present session of Congress. Seeing the importance of which, according to his opinion of the duty of the House, the business which yet remained before the House, he had nothing to do with this trial. Whatever opinions could not consent to the investigation of an alleged transmight be held, either in or out of that House, or whatever action, whether true or false, which had not any thing to his own might be, as to the transaction alluded to, there do with the question. could be but one as to its pertinency to the question before Suppose the charge should turn out to be true; how far them. He had at first objected to the interrogatory which could it direct the judgment of that House as to the guilt proposed to go into the evidence in possession of the gen- or innocence of the accused? Suppose it proved untrue, tleman from Ohio when he had alluded to this matter in his the accused could not go into that fact as his defence. speech, and in every instance since Mr. W. had express- And should the Congress of the United States press an ined the same opinion. The counsel, however, had been vestigation which must waste perhaps three months of its indulged with permission to present it, and the witness time? For some of the witnesses, he understood, were had answered the interrogatory. Since that, the accused in New York; there were witnesses in Arkansas, and some had introduced evidence, not for the purpose of disprov- in Florida. Besides, the character of an individual was ing any of the circumstances stated in the affidavit, but to involved very deeply in it, and who might himself be a discredit the witness. The House had not heard any evi- witness; or, if not, who should at least have an opportunidence to disprove the statement of Mr. STANBERRY, fur- ty to be heard, (he alluded to the late Secretary of War.) ther than to question the credibility of the affidavit he had He could not be influenced by partiality, if the newspaproduced. And, now, what were they asked to do' The pers spoke true: for, according to them, the individual House was asked to permit a witness to state what he knew and he were no great friends. of the late Secretary of War, and his acts in relation to his Mr. COULTER rose to order. After the testimony of giving to the accused a certain contract for Indian rations. the accused had closed, it was not competent for any memAnd for what? To enlighten their minds on the question ber to call a witness; the House alone could do so. But whether the rights of the House had or had not been vio-this witness had been called by the gentleman from Ohio, lated? Or was it intended and used to aggravate the pun- and not by the House. ishment, (if any) Again, as to the question of expediency, was it not wholly inexpedient to present the House in such a situation that it should be impracticable that all the requisite evidence could not be produced? It might become Mr. WAYNE concurred with the gentleman from Pennimportant to show what the Secretary of War had said at sylvania, [Mr. COULTER,] in his objection to the introduca certain time: would that be proper evidence against the tion of this witness. He had also another reason to object. accused? It might prove important to show what some The gentleman from Ohio, when asking to introduce other person had said, with a view to show, quo animo, this witness, had expressly limited his request to such the contract had been made. On both grounds, therefore, testimony as should operate, in some degree, to relieve of competency and of expediency, Mr. W. must object the ridiculous light in which he had been made to appear to the interrogatory. He objected for another reason, (as by the testimony of Mr. BUCKNER. The gentleman had he would have done, also, to much of the testimony, but been indulged, and now it was a breach of his tacit agreefrom an unwillingness to trouble the House so frequently,) ment to ask to examine a witness for an entirely different it was the consumption of the time of the House. the investigation of this subject go to a select committee, who could take the depositions of all the parties implicated, and give the whole matter a thorough examination. In making these objections, he had discharged a very unwelcome, but an imperative duty. The CHAIR observed that no objection was made when the witness was moved for. The Chair took it as the sense of the House. Let purpose. Mr. MERCER inquired of the Chair whether all the witnesses originally named by Mr. STANBERRY had been summoned. The CHAIR replied he had nothing to do with the issuing of subpoenas; that was all done by the Clerk. |