Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1832-04-27

he
read' twas decided in the airnativc-Ayes So Noes IL
SO the House ordered the affidavit be read and il was
read at the Clerks table accordingly.
The objection OF Counsel also real and the
being, Shall this question be received
! Mr. Vance demanded the Yeas and Nays
Mr. Kerr now moved TO postpone further proceedings
in the trial until IL o'clock to- morrow
Mr. L. Condict, with view, he said to cut off the
unprohaOc and worse than Improbable discussion which
mad so long occupied the morning of every day moved TO
amend the motion by substituting IL o'clock, which was
| agreed to- w.
so the trial was postponed until tomorrow at II O'clock
lie accused was conducted from the bar and then the
| House adjourned. ~
lFRoM THE JOURNAL THE HOUSED
| - Friday .ApTl 20.
| The hour of IL clock, meridian, having arrived
samuel Houston accompanied by his Counsel was
placed at the bar OF the House, by order of the Speaker
Mr. sianberry requested that his testimony delivered
yesterday, be read-wbich being done he cave tho iol
lowing explanatory testimony, viz:
81 believed during the evening Of the contest and the
whole OF the next day, that had been knocked down by
the club on the first second blow but on examining
my wascoat the next day, and perceving that the but
tons were some of them torn OF, and my shirt the bosom
oil which was torn, began TO doubt my first Impressions
and was led TO conclude that might have been .rown
down in the scutlle.'
The question REQUIRED granting permission to the ac-
SSvu 70 Miur3w Tue nterrogaory propounded by his
counsel yesterday, TO Mr.. Stanbery, and which l. a, M
lows: ~ " 10 Iva
Thesc remarks, thus published impute fraud 10 the
fiad you then or have you now, any, and what
eNuehce oil the correctness OF such imputaon and 10
substitute in lieu thereof another nerrogatory which is
as follows: - ~ 10
Did you or did you not mpuc fraud or intend TO minute
aud 10 he accused in the statement of your remarks in
the lntelligencer OF the 2d?
w hich motion subsequently withdrawn
Inc question then REQUIRED on the motion made IN, N
Archer, yesterday, and which pending when the ar
cused moved for permission withdraw the interropa,o
ana substitute another aforesaid; which motion as fol-
Resoired That the House consider the witness az bav
ing sufficiently answered the nterrogatory propouneJ
And after further debate thereon
Mr. Archer withdrew his said motion
>, mouoh was then made by Mr.. Alexander that the
House do reconsider the taken yesterday bv which
the Complainant viz '"
'These remarks thus published, mpute fraud to the
ii you men, or nave you now, any, and what
evidence oil inc correctness OF such imputaon!
And after debate,
The previous question was moved by Mr. Stewart, and
being demanded by majority OF the members present
NC S',u previous question was put viz Shall the main
question be put? Wv "
And passed in the affirmative
The said main question was then n,t r;-. WIN Al,
House re consider the said vote
Ana was decided in the negative
w. thperIy was at ms request, excused from vot-
P Oh is question: as well as any question which NAV
arise IN 'c nearing OF the trial of Samuel Houston
WIN oahoerry then proceeded further TO testify as fol-
lows, IN answerto the said interrogatory:
Though in making the remarks referred 10 did nat in
.chu TO ipute fraud TO Governor Houston being prvatc
whose residence was unknown TO me- q did not
know he was in this cy;) yet if am called upon now IN
cypress an OPINION whether he be guilty OF fraud or not
lere exception was taken TO the relevancy of the tcs
mohy "hen Mr. D resumed, he said II | would not be
understood by what stated as acouitinG Govornor H
ton OF participation in this fraud. He was nrivato ci,i
zen unknown 10 me, and had no object in bringing his
character IN question But if | was called upon TO ex-
press an OPINION should say that did believe at the time
made the remarks, and do now that Governor Uons,
oo participate IN the attempted fraud shall state the
evidence that had OF his participating in it, wos
member OF this House in 1880 at Inc time tho mas
Tor making the contract for Indian rations were pmbbJ
ia ue I'eiiiSencer and the Telegraph this place |
had knowledge that such advertisement was nublsbJ
was informed that the object of the proposals was 70 invita-
contract. F was " '"'ie
Al this stage of the testimony the witness was ,r,o
ny MT DcardsIey, who then moved the following: -
mat 'he witness be precuded from stating his belief
any fraud committedby Governor Houston or in which
he participated" " ~
A motion made by Mr.. TAYLOR TO amend tbo mo.
ton by striking out the word "beleG and inserting the
word evidence" which being disagreed to
motion was made by Mr.. Craig to amend the said
NOTION oy striking out after the word chat and insert
ing the following: he witness be precIuded in his re-
Spouse 10 me i9'errogaoy last put from stating any facts
tending 10 Tx fraud upon the accused or upon any other
person." 10y '0
and on the question to agree to this amendment,
III passed III the negative.
motion then made bv Mr. Rates IF Nr,s,oob
SETS TO amend the said motion by adding thereto the fol-
loving; VIZ: but may be permitted to state any evidence
winch he then had or now has tending to prove ito
ana on the question to agree to this amendment il pas
sed in the affirmative - pas
As thus amended the said motion is as follows:
~ mat The witness be precluded from stating his beof
OF any fraud committed by Governor Houston orin yhih
Inc participated but may permitted TO state anv owl
WHICH ne then mad or has, tending TO prove
And on the question to agree to the said motion &c
amended, il passed in the affirmative
Another motion was then made by Mr. Bcardslev:
mat the witness be preclnded from giving evidence of
any fraud committed by participated in by Samuel
iouS'on ana which is not in the printed speech of said
witness imputed 10 said Houston''
A motion was made by Mr. Vinton that this motion bo
lalu on the table, which motion lie on the table the
PeaNef decided, under the order adopted on the I7,h
instant prescribing the mode of proceeding In the case
III hearing, was not in order.
From this decision Mr. Vinton anncaIed ~ ,b Ill.,
And after debate the appeal
Mr. Bcardsey Withdrew his said motion
And William Stanbcry then again proceeded tn testify
follows: f " 'o'"'y
not only for the supply Of ratons TO such Indians s
"1u dieddy ehgraed, but for the supply of raons for
an 0se VINO might emigrae after the passage of the In
dlah BI Then before this House, and which would re-
qre an expenditure OF several millions of dollars The
advertisement was so framed conceal from the Pub
TIC the Importance OF the proposed contract By the adj
'eisencn the proposals be received i'm so short
Time alter the publication that the people i'm the West
er country could have opportunity of making propo-
s even the importance oft had been set forth in The
ADVERTISEMENTS These advertisements were printed
about The time that Governor Houston was in b;s c,
lie was understood TO be man of broken fortunes and
uids,cu reputation 1t nevertheless believed that
hc president entertained friendly feelings towards him.
Dut mat IN consequence of his bad reputation the Presi
uet could not openly reward him. or nominate him TO anv
once OF honor or emolumen understood that C;overuer
houston was an applicant for this contract and that one of
he oJecS OF bis visit TO this city obtain this con-
tract saw, by the OF The proposas ta, M indi
ydua not favored by the Head of the Department or the
President could make any considerable sum of money Inv
", ny the terms OF the