Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1832-04-27
VOL. XXVHI.-.-No. 1Il.

]
swered The essential part of the answer had been given
and The House had no concern in the residue.
Mr. Craig moved that the witness be excused from fur
Their answering the iuterrogatory.
Mr. Coulter hoped that the counsel would conscnt IN,
must be given
Mr. A. Shepherd Of North CorOlina moved consite
ration.
Mr. Key expressed his willingness 10 withdraw ,b,,
ntcrrogatory. lie considered having been fully an
swered, did he how any further answer could be-
given.
Mr. McDufie observed that the counsel could uot
withdraw the nterrogatory but by permission of tho
House, which permission he hoped the House would re-
swercd. ~
Mr.. Burgess, while he regretted that the House had
got into difficulty, thought worse TO retreat than to
proceed reconsideration would not extingush the
question which had been put. 1t might with the an.
swer be exPunged from the record, but before o-mor-
row II would have reached million of ears. After tho
question had been put and answered. then gravev TO pro-
pose that it be cconsdered too much like chdren's
play.
MIR. Shepherd after a few explanatory remarks vc.-
drew his notion.
Mr. Vinton rose TO address the Houses but was cal
led to order by Mr.. Patton the ground that debate
was forbidden by the following rule of adopt
! cd by the House, viz:
"But if any question shall be objected TO- or any les
tnony offered shall be objected 10 by any member the
member so obectng and the accused his counsel shall
be heard thereon; after which, the question shall he de-
cided without further debato'
The Chair decided that the present case did not come
within the rule No testimony had been offered and OBJ
jected
Mr. Vinton insisted that the witness ought 10 bo per
med TO proceed, because he had fact answered no
part Of the nterrcgaory. He had dsavowei the intention
OF impung fraud; but the ineTOgaory inquired nothing
ABOUT ms Intentions it asked for the evidence he possessed
respecting fraud
Mr.. Patton willing, for himself to hear vbuteveT
the witness could He only objected his answernc
farther because would involve the House in trial not
OF The accused, but of the late Secretary of War Af-
ter the witness had discamed The impuaton of fraud il
seemed absurd to ask him what ground he imputed it,
Mr. Coulter wished TO hear all that the witness had to
say, unless the interogatory should be withdrawn Tho
LIZ. cha
dent had been guilty of fraud but that the late Secretary
had been willing 10 give him fraudulent contract
The gentleman from Ohio declared that his design
had been TO strike at oier head that he had oniy
named the respondent with view to identify the transact
ton He hoped no advantage would be taken from this
explanation 10 en'rap the witness making disclaimers
which he never intended He thought the espondent and
ms counsel might withdraw the nterrogatory if they chose
III not the witness must proceed.
Mr. McDuhie insisted that it for the tytiess 10 de-
termne where he would close his 1t was the first
time he had heard il said to witness Thus Tar Vol,
shall go, and arher If the gentleman from Ohio was
satisfied it was very WELL but the House had no power to
arrest him..
Mr. Clay thought this new rule Of evidence In Tho
courts, when the witness about giving irrelevant tes
iimony, he was always stopped Mr. c. protested against
incidentally trying charges against the late Secretary of
War; who was not before the House, had received no.
notice OF the inquiry, and had opportunity to an
Mr.. Daniel was in favor of having the ores,;or cu
answered 1t did not inquire whether fraud had been i'm
pu'ed; It assumed that; and called for evidence That
the respondent would in his defence RELY OH the fact at
fraud had been imputed
Mr.. Wayne requested the gentleman from VIRGINIA to
withdraw his motion Let the witness proceed and if he
went into statements which were irrelevant no would
doubtless he overruled.
Mr.. Craig consented TO withdraw his motion. ,,r
which ' uro''
Mr. Archer moved that the House consider the inter
rogaory as having been fully answered. Mr. A. consi-
dered Tie disclaimer made by Mr.. Sanbcrry substan.
tally covering the evidence cnquircd for In there vas
no imputaion of fraud then there could be no proof on
which an niputation OF fraud had been made
hir S'anberry SAID that nc could IN
notion what ne had said thus far should stand upon
the record as his answer TO the interrugaory
Mr.. Wilde thought the House were running ahead of
lhe case oy anticipating the possible effect of answer
which as yet unknown. From what the witness had
that having had no intention mpute fraud he coud moi
give any evidence which the putation was made. hnt
n@' me House desircd such evidence respecting fraud
as he did possess, he was ready TO produce.
Mr. Adams said, that he could not vote land he re-
gettcdi Tor The proposition Of his friend from Virginia
because II dill not in his apprehension convey the ru
state OF things, Gt had certainly been the ecntIeman,s
intention 10 state only what perfectly correctly buf
me question: IN i"ct' had not been answered all
Inc irst clause in the intcrTogaory contained the allie
CATION of fact, which assumed by the accused and
his counsel and the House. by agreeing to the motion
and ordering the nterrogaory to be put, had assumed
that fact themselves The question in the nterrooato
had not been answered The only question il contaned
was what evidence the gentleman from Ohio possessed
IN support OF the inpuiaon which the House assumed
the gentleman 10 have made. The assumption had been
denied, but the question had been answered Tho
assumption was the act of the House. When therefore
the other gentleman from Virginia (Mr Paiton had OBJ
Iectcd to the Witness proceeding to answer the question
according TO the order of the House Mr. Adams concur-
ring entirely with him in the improperly of the witnesses
proceeding, had suggested him the propretv of moving
reconsideration OF the of the House recurring the
witness to answer the question This he had declined to
no. and Mr. Adams himself having voted against that or
er oil he House not being privileged to the re con-
deraon had also been precued from assigning his rea-
son Tor his vote against the order the House; which was
precisely that now assigned for arresng the answer re-
CURED by that order from the witness; that is the obvious
improperly OF receiving testimony charging with fraud
person not here present TO defend himself
II had been evident 70 him that the moment the npu
taon OF fraud should be denied, the question would be
transferred: and the House should now take one stem
more 1T would be the late Secretary of War that the House
would be trying land not the Respondent the BnrO the
Secretary not being present defend himself The ac-
cused had interest in the answer of the inierrogatorv
and therefore il would be irrelevant Mr. A. was not e-
nacous OF the mode in which the House should rerace ts
own steps lie would vote for any proposition which con.
scnt with what he considered the fact should arrest
INC answer OF the witness, npnting fraud 10 absent
person, out nc could not in resolution, declaring
mat the question had been answered II had been
answered. The assumption Of fraud had been denied
not answer question which tie House had already order.
cd that he should answer
The debate was further continued by Messrs. Carson,
Lctchcr, Dayiou, Craig, and Davis of Mass (yhoso re-
marks obliged, for want Of time prepare hem,
rclucantyto omit0 when Mr.. Patton moved an amend
nent 10 The resolution OF Mr. Archer, which was in fact
substitute for it, viz that the further answer Of the Wit
ness be dispensed with,
Mr.. Foster opposed 10 the witness proceeding any
farther lwoud not add 10 the exclamation sought by ths
respondent, add would only imphcatc third parties.