Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1832-04-27
EXTRACT FROM TUE JOURNAL.


SATURDAY, April 2lst, 1882.
Mr.. Hail. of North Carolina moved the follow
ing resolution, viz:
"Rssoircd, That member Of the House. OK
cept the Committee appointed for the management,
OF tho trial now pending before the House, he per-
tnittcd 10 discuss questions pertaining to tho trial
OF Samuel Houston, until the examination OF wit
1csscs is closed; that all questions be propounded
/ through Tic Committee in writing, and that the
/ Members of the Committee alone, on the par, of
the House, he allowed to object to, ur discuss the
relevancy or irrclcvancy OF testimony thus prcclu.
ding any farther debate upon the decision of such
questions or objections"
And, after debate the said resolution
4 motion was made by Mr.. John Reed that the
said resolution do lie on the table: And thercupon
Mr.. Hall withdrew the said resolution.
| Mr.. Wickli!te then moved the following rosolu-
! ton:
Rcsolrcd, 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 of Samuel
Houston, that the right to obcct to the introduce
ton of evidence, and debate questions arising tIere
on, shall be- confined TO the Committee already APP
pointed, who shall be authorised to conduct the OK
animation, and discuss questions arising upon the
Introduction of testimony the part Of the
House.
And after debate thereon.
Mr. Wickliifc withdrew the said resolution.
And Samuel Houston, accompanied by his
sci, was placed at the Bar of the House.
The question REQUIRED, Shall tho affidavit of
Luther Blake be received, the objection OF the ac
cuscd to the contrary notwiths' anding7 when
The accused withdrew his objection to the ro.
cciving of said affidavit.
Mr. Stanbcry then offered paper as contain
ing certificate Of the date of the affidavit of Lu-
| Their Blake.
To the reception of which paper the accused
objected.
| And tie question as then stated Shall the said
paper he received? when
| a motion made by Mr.. Creighton, that the
said paper be read.
And the question being put,
1t was decided in the negative.
And on motion Of Mr.. Vinton, leave was given
to Mr. Stsnbcry, to withdraw the said paper, and
thcrcupon Mr.. :. withdrew said paper.
MIR. Stanbery then further deposed as follows:
The affidavit furnished by Mr. Blake, was handed
to inc by my colleague, Mr.. Vance. | knew no
thing of Mr.. Blake, or the circumstances under
which it was taken, or who requested it. l have
heard, however, that he is gentleman of respect
ability, and that his business called him from the
city, or he would have remained and given his tes-
timony. Although had such knowledge of this
contemplated fraud, satisfied my own mind
about the period that it took place, yet before
had made the remarks to the House, had read the
recent exposures of that transaction in the Tcle-
graph; and tho facts stated by the Editor of that
paper, confirmed my former convictions; and |
believe that the fraud can be subsiantatcd by the
witnesses whose names | proceed to give to the
House, viz Thomas J.. McKenny, John Shackford
Hon. John Bell, of Tennessee, Mr.. Branch a
Member of this House, Duff Green, Of this CITY,
Gen. Van Fosscn, of New York, the Hon. Mr.
Dickson, n Member of this House, VIM. Prentiss
of this Cit
IL vii. be necessary, in order to make out the
case also to have the proposals for the contract
which are or ought to be, on The files of the War
Department, ard the correspondence of tho indi.
vlduals who made the proposals, with the Secretary
of War have nothing further to say in answer
to the intcrrogatory.
Quesii,n Gy Tie accuscd-Wh hen did YOU receive
tho affidavit Of Luther Blake, presented yesterday?
Answcr.-l believe it received after the last
intorroCatory propoundcd, but before had OF
ven any answer TO it. ! believe it was during the
tl'To the intcrrogatory was under discussion.
Question by Tie Gccuscd-Whon did you first
hear Of il, and from whom7
Ansrcr-I knew nothing about it.
Question by the nccuscd.-Do you know how eng
the said Blake remained in the city, after giving
tho affidavit; and he IN the city when you ro-
Ccivcd the Affidavit
Ansvcr--I knew nothing about it, I have nc.
ycr seen tho man, and know nothing about it, ex-
ccpl from the information Of others
Question by Tie dccuSed.-Had you any inform.
alton Of his having left the city, and when did lie
Am'~er.-At the time presented the paper
had no information whether hc had left the city,
or any thing about if; since have learned that hc
mad Ic't the city OH the 18th Of this month.
question by the accHscd.-Was nc requested TO
remain and give evidence, and by whom?
hHs"cr.--l heard from Prentiss of this CITY, that
nc ana request him 10 remain but tho urgency of
ms business would not permit him.
H"c$jo" Ly The accUscd.--lIad you heard Of the
ai iavlt before you received ibid you learn at
whose instance it was given?
1"Swcr.-I did not hear Of it before it vas pre-
Senlcd TO mo. have understood, since offered il
mat 1t was taken at the instance and request Of Mr.
PrCutiss.
question ny The nccus,d.--Do you know in
whose handwriting it is?
iHswcr.-No.
Question ny Nr dccUscd.-Do you know when
the said affidavit was takcn7
AnSwcr--No: only from the certificate Of tho
nagistratc in my possession; by which it appears
That i was taken on Monday, the 18th inst.
y,trsiiOG by the 0c~.ccJ a RI tho manor. no,y