defended. On that day, with a view of preventing further discussion, Mr Grennell demanded the previous question, and being sustained by the House, the motion was carried. Upon discharging the committee the vote stood, yeas 111, nays 65, and upon referring it to the Secretary of the Treasury, yeas 114, nays 53. In the course of the debate upon this motion, Mr Stanberry, of Ohio, made the following remarks, which occasioned a great sensation in the House:

Mr Stanberry said, he hoped the motion to discharge the committee on the judiciary, from the further consideration of this matter, would not prevail. It is admitted, (said he,) that the collector is an officer, liable to be impeached by the constitution; and that, if the charges made against him be true, they constitute an impeachable offence. But it seems to be thought that, because he was appointed by the President, and removable at his pleasure, that it would be encroaching upon the President's prerogative, for this House to meddle with the officer. I rise chiefly for the purpose of entering my protest against this doctrine. If this House sanction it, we will relinquish the most salutary power vested in us by the constitution.

Is it certain, if the most satisfactory proof were made of the guilt of this officer, that he would be removed by the head of the treasury department, or by the President? Sir, the people whom I represent, have tried the experiment of endeavoring to effect the removal of a United States'

officer by making complaints against him to the head of a department. The superintendent of the Cumberland road in Ohio was guilty, not only of defrauding the government, but of oppressing and defrauding individuals, with whom contracts were made for the construction of the road. Added to this, he was notoriously incompetent for the discharge of the duties of his office. Complaints were made to the late secretary of war, who sent a respectable and intelligent officer of the army to investigate the charges. This officer, (Major Talcott,) did on the spot enter into a laborious investigation of the conduct of the superintendent. He took the testimony of witnesses on oath, and the superintendent had every opportunity of making his defence. The testimony, accompanied by the report of Major Talcott, was transmitted to the war department. I have heard, (for I have not read the testimony or the report, but I have no doubt of the fact,) that the testimony did most fully prove the charges made against the superintendent, and the report of Major Talcott recommended his removal. Well, sir, was the superintendent removed? No such thing. He still holds the office; and, notwithstanding the great interest which Ohio has in the continuation of this road, I believe most of her representatives feel almost indifferent whether any further appropriations be made, i. this superintendent is permitted to hold his office. We know that the money will be wasted, and that the work will languish.

The superintendent of the Cumberland road is not the only officer who has been suffered to continue in office, after proofs of his transgressions had reached the President. Was the late secretary of war removed in consequence of his attempt, fraudulently, to give to Governor Houston the contract for Indian rations? I derive my knowledge of this transaction not from the columns of the Telegraph. The whole affair was known to me at the time it took place. The editor of the Telegraph gives himself too much credit for defeating this attempted fraud. I understood that it was in consequence of the remonstrances of the delegate from Arkansas, that the contract was not completed. There is one fact, however, for which I am indebted to the Telegraph; and that is, that the President had full knowledge of the business, and that it did not meet with his disapprobation.

'Is not William B. Lewis still suffered to hold his office? And is any further proof needed to convince any man of his guilt?

We are

'Unlimited confidence in the President is a doctrine unknown to the constitution. placed here, to check the Executive. But now, it is thought the only mark of genuine patriotism to profess the most unbounded devotion to the will of the President; and the conduct of every officer, favored by the President, must be exempt from all inquiry or censure. "It does not become us," said a Roman knight in the Senate, boasting of his friendship for Serjanus, and addressing himself to Tiberius-"It does not

Το

become us to inquire into the person you are pleased to prefer above others, or into reason. you Heaven has given a consummate judgment. To us there remains the glory of a cheerful obedience." Language fit for the ears of a tyrant, master of the lives and property of his subjects; but most unfit for the ears of the chief magistrate of a free people, holding his power by their will, and responsible to them for its abuse.'

These remarks, which caused great excitement in the House, were inserted in the National Intelligencer, and Mr Houston, who was then at Washington, addressed a letter to Mr Stanberry, inquiring whether his name was used by him in debate, and if so, whether his remarks had been correctly quoted in the newspaper. Mr Stanberry replied, that he could not recognise the right of Mr Houston to request an answer to his inquiry. Offended at this reply, Mr Houston determined to take redress into his own hands; and in the evening of the 13th of April he assaulted Mr Stanberry with a bludgeon, knocked him down and beat him so severely, that he was not able to resume his seat for several days. The next day, Mr Stanberry addressed a letter to the Speaker, informing the House of this assault upon him for the part taken by him in debate. The letter having been read Mr Vance moved that the Speaker issue his warrant for the apprehension of Samuel Houston, and directing the sergeant at arms to keep him subject to the order of the House. This motion was opposed

Messrs. Polk, Speight, Patten and Beardsley on the ground that Congress had no authority to act in this Summary manner. The House, however, thought otherwise, and in order to put an end to a debate which was regarded as derogatory to its character. the previous question was ordered, yeas 104, nays 65,and the resolution passed, yeas 145, nays 25. At the next meeting of the House, April 16, Mr Houston was brought before it in custody of the sergeant, and, being arraigned, requested time to prepare his defence. On On the 18th he again appeared, and being interrogated by the Speaker, he replied, that he did indeed assault Mr Stanberry, but denied that he intended to commit any contempt towards the House. That upon reading in the National Intelligencer remarks purporting to have been made by Mr Stanberry on the floor of the House, he felt indignant, and addressed a letter to him inquiring whether the remarks were correctly reported. To this inquiry Mr S. refused to give any answer, in a manner calculated still further to injure him. That under the influence of feelings thus excited, he did, on accidentally meeting with Mr Stanberry, assault and beat him.

The House then went into an examination of the circumstances attending the assault, and after taking the testimony, Mr Houston on the 7th of May was heard in his own defence.

Mr Harper then made a motion, that the accused be discharged from the custody of the sergeants, and the resolution having

been read, Mr Huntington moved as an amendment, that Samuel Houston has been guilty of a contempt and violation of the privileges of the house.

A discussion now ensued as to the right of the House to inflict any punishment, the administration party contending, with but few exceptions, that it was either inexpedient or unconstitutional for the House to punish any act as a contempt, unless committed in its presence and during the sitting. Upon putting the question, however, Mr Huntington's amendment was carried, yeas 106, Nays 88. Mr Clay, of Alabama, then moved that it was inexpedient to proceed further in the matter, and that Samuel Houston be discharged from custody; and Mr Huntington moved as an amendment, that Samuel Houston be brought to the bar of the House on the 14th of May, and publicly reprimanded for the contempt, and also, that he be excluded from the privileges belonging to him as a former member of the House. This amendment was declared by the Speaker to be out of order, but upon appeal the decision of the Speaker was overruled, yeas 89, nays 106. The first part of Mr Huntington's amendment was then adopted, yeas 105, nays 89, and that part, excluding Gov. Houston from the privileges of the House, was rejected, ayes 90, nays 101. The resolution thus amended was then passed, yeas 96, nays 84, and on the day designated, he was brought to the bar of the House and publicly reprimanded by the Speaker for a breach of the privileges of the House.

was on the point of inflicting summary justice upon his assailant. This assassin-like assault gave a shock to public sentiment, which it would have been hazardous not to have noticed. The civil authorities were called upon to act, and put an end to a state of affairs alike disgraceful to the government and to the capital of the United States.

The grand jury, which was then in session, found bills against Samuel Houston and Morgan A. Heard for assaults with intent to kill. The former was convicted of an assault, and fined $500, and the latter was never brought to trial, being deemed an object better fitted for a mad house, than for the censure of a court of jus tice.