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

The accused was conducted from tho bar, and
then the House adjourned.
| FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE.
FRIDAY, ArRn. 30.
The hour of II o'clock, meridian, having arrived
Samuel Houston, accompanied by his Counsel
placed the bar OF the House, by order of the
Speaker.
Mr. Stanbcry requested that his testimony, de-
livered yesterday, be road-which being done, he
gave the following explanatory testimony, viz:
81 believed during the evening of the contest and
the whole ofthe next day, that had been knocked
down by the club on the first second blow; but,
on examining my wastcoat the next day, and per-
cciving that the buttons some of them torn
oil, and my shirt, the bosom of which torn, |
began to doubt my first impressions, and led
to conclude that might have been thrown down in
the scuiilo"
The question recurrcd on granting permission to
the accused to withdraw the intcrrogatory pro-
pounded by his Counsel Yesterday, to MIR. Stanbcry
and which is follows:
"Thcso remarks, thus published, mpute fraud
to the accused. Had you then or have you now any
and what evidence of the correctness of such impu-
tdtlon!" And TO substitute in lieu thereof, another
interrogatory, which is follows:
Did you or did you not imputc fraud or intend to
mputc fraud to the accused in the statement of
your remarks in the Inteligcnccr of the 2d7
Which motion was subsc lucntiy withdrawn
The question then required the motion made
by Mr.. Archer, yesterday, and which pending
when the accused moved for permission to with
draw the intcrrogatory and substitute another, as
! u.orc said which motion is as follows
ResOLrsd, That the House consider the witness
as having sufficiently answered the interrogatory
propoundcd.
And after further debate thereon
MIR. Archer withdrew his said motion.
| a motion was then made by MIR. Alexander that
the House do reconsider the vote taken yesterday
by which the said intcrrogatory directed to be
| propOundcd to the Complainant viz:
'Fhesc remarks thus published imputo fraud
to the accuscd-IIad you then, have You now,
any, and what evidence of the correctness Of such
imputation?
! And after debate,
The previous question was moved by Mr.. Stew
| art, and being demanded by majority of the mem
bcrs present
The said previous question was put, viz Shall the
main question be put?
And passed in the affirmative.
The said main question then pat, viz: Will
the House reconsider the said vote?
And was decided in the negative.
VIM. Stanbcry was, at his request, excused from
voting on this question, well as any question
which may rise in the hearing of the trial of Samu
el Houston.
William Stanbcry then proceeded further to tes
tty follows III answer to the said interrogatory:
Though in making the remarks referred to, did
not intend to imputc fraud to Governor Houston,
being private individual whose residence was un-
known to me, Il did not know he was in this city;)
yet If am called upon now to express opinion
whether he be guilty of fraud not Here except
ion was taken to the relevancy of the testimony:
when Mr.. 5. resumed, he said | would not be
understood by what stated acquittng Governor
Houston participation in this fraud. He
private citizen, unknown 10 me, and had no OBJ
Jcct In bringing his character in question But if
L was called upon TO express opinion, | should
say that did believe at the time | made the re-
marks, and do now, that Governor Houston did
participate IN the attempted fraud shall state
the evidence that had of his participating in it.
was member of this House in 1880, at the time
| the proposals for making the contract for Indian
ratonS were published in the Intclligcncer and the
! Telegraph at this place. ] had knowledge that
such advertisement was published. / was inform
ed that the object of the proposals was to invite
contract.
At this stage of the testimony, the witness was
stopped by Mr.. Beardsey, who then moved the
| following:
THAT the witness be prccluded from stating his
belief OF any fraud committed by Governor Hous-
ton, or In which he participated"
n motion was made by Mr.. Taylor to amend the
motion by striking out the word "beiief" and in
sorting the word evidence" which being disagreed
motion was made by Mr.. Craig, to amend the
SAID motion, by striking out after the word 'that"
and inserting the following: "thc witness be prcclud-
ed Ill hIs response to the intcrrogatory last put,
! from stating any facts tending to fix fraud upon the
accused, or upon any other person."
And, on the question to agree to this amend
1 mcnt,
ltpasscd in the negative.
A motion then made by Mr.. Bates of Mas.
sachusets, to amend the said motion by adding there
to the following, viz but may be permitted 10 state
any evidence which he then had or now has tending
! to prove it,"
And ON the question to agree to this amendment
| it passed in the affirmative.
! AS thus amended the said motion is as fol.
| lows:
THAT the witness be prccludcd from stating his
belief ofany fraud committed by Governor Houston
or in which hc participated, but may be permitted
to state any evidence which ne then had or now has
/ tending to prove it,"
And the question to agree to the said mo-
ton amended il passed in the Affirmative
Another motion was then made by Mr.. Boards
ley;
That the witness be precludcd from giving evi.
dencc of any fraud committed by, or, participated
in, by Samuel Houston, and which is not in the
! printed speech of said witness imputed to said
! Iouston."
motion was made by Mr.. Vinton, that this mo
ton be laid the table, which motion to lie on the
table, the Speaker decided, under the order adopted
on 18th instant, prescribing the mode of proceeding
| in the case, in hearing, not in order,
From this decision Mr. Yinton appealed 70 the
! House.
! And after debate on the appeal;
| Mr.. Bcardslcy Withdrew his said motion.
And William Stanbcry then again proceeded to
| testify as follows:
not only for the supply Of rations such
Indians as have already cmicratcd, but for the
supply of rations for all those who might cngrate
after the passage Of the Indian Bill then before
this House, and which would require expcndi-
turc of several millions of dollars. The advertise.
mcnt framed to conceal from the Pub
lie the Importance of the proposed contract. BY
the advertisement, the proposals were to be rcccI-
we'd in so short time after the publication that
the people in the Western country could have no