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

II,
stanily withdrawn. His ndispoSi,ion to speak had
prevented him hitherto from stating his objections;
but n should do so no longer. lie considered these
attempts to stop debate, by any but the Committee
ON Privileges, an attempt to exercise II power
which was not constitutional Ii duha,c bccnn,
excessive, they had remedy by the Previous Quss
ton. Bat when the liberties OF the non,hcrs at that
House and their constituents were involved debate
should not he confined To a few individuals who
had been selected only for the greater facility of
putting questions TO the witnesses. Had they not
seen that House almost equally divided as to the
Propricty of calling man to account for such
an act as had ,akcn place. And would members
now deprive themselves uf the power OF debut,7
Mr. Is. said that he for one not disposed to cx
erciso tho right III his person. but sitting there
as one Of the Representatives, of the People no
was anxious 20 hear discussion Ivy overy ipcnber
and anxious, too, for his right to discuss any
question, fhe should think proper to do 20 Io was
opposed To both the propositions which had been
offered OF this subject and should OPPOSE all of a
similar kind that mig ht be offered
Mr.. Nckliilc begged pardon Of the House, and
hoped 10 DC forgiven. lie had now risen to with
draw his resolution, and should cnde avor to set a
good example by atstaining from all debate upon
Mr.. Plummcr asked leave OF the House to OK
pam AN error INTO which the Reporters had fallen
IN reference to some remarks ofhis yesterday.
II being objected TO,
Mr. Thompson, of Georgia, moved to have tho
rule suspended.
Mr. Ellsworth asked what was tho object!
Cries were heard of "out Of order, "no, no."
'ict HIM GO on" "ordcr"
The Speaker put the quo stiou and tho rylc vas
thereupnn suspended.
lr. Hummer expressed regret that no should
have caused any excitement i'll the House. fc
then went on TO state, that in the Intclgcnccr of
that morning he was reported to h1vc charged tho
gentleman from Ohio Mr.. Stanbory) with having
fabricated certain charge, which were without a
shadow OF foundation in truth lie had mace no
such charge. fc had said, the contrary, that
no could not believe tina: the gentleman from Ohio
would iahrcatc long string oftase charges against
any ono: aud, Inc could not believe this that his
confidence III the Government had been Shaken
lie had not charged the mcmhcr in tho manner
stated, and he hoped he never should
The accused was then put to the Bar.
MIR. Clayton then asked the House to suspcnd
inc orGers OF the day, long enough to allow the
Bank tonmittec to present their Report; but, after
some conversation, withdrew his motion.
Tho Chair inquired of tho Respondent whether
he was ready to proceed in the trial? And nc re-
spondcd in The affirmative.
Mr. Stambcry said he un,crs, bod tho date of tho
affidavit he had yesterday offered in cvidt ice had
been omitted: he now wished to present Il statement
OF ihH Magistrate before whom it had been taken.
Inc lhalr having put the question, whether this
paper should be received,
Mr. hcy observed that the affidavit Of Mr.
Blake had been read, he should no LONGER object to
It's being received; but, ina.much as it hal been
credit it. lie wilrcw lis objection to the atlia.
Wit of Mr.. Blake
Mr.. S,anbcry thcE offered the paper he had ro
icrrcd TO.
Mr. Ky sad that cr parir aiiduvit had been
offered yesterday; to-day certificate was offered of
magistrate residing IN the city, and whose person
al attendance could loo procured.
MT. Kerr inquired when the certificate had been
mahe2
Mr.. Stanbery said it had cen handed TO him this
morning.
Mr.. Kerr objected to its being received, as il
could not have influenced the gentleman at the
time he made the charge of fraud in his speech,
nor can 1T have been one of the grounds of evil
dcncc operating on his mind at the time the inter
rogatory was proposed.
MIR. Creighton asked that it might he read
The House refused permission, Ayes -, Noes |
90.
Tho question was then put on receiving the Ger.
tiicae.
MIR. Bates of Massachusetts, said that he did not |
know what was tho objection raised, or what |
was the character of the paper offered.
Mr. Is err explained. lie had objected to the pa.
per- as he understood it TO be Il certificate intended
to supply defect in the formula of the affidavit
and as 1t could not have formed any part of the
grounds on which the gentleman had acted in the
debate 1t was certainly incompetent for him to
correct the defect now, when nc was called upon to
state the grounds on which ho had acted in impu
ting fraud to the respondent.
Mr.. W lntt!cscy observed, that the respondents
counsel had taken exception to the affidavit of
Blake, because it had no date. But the witness
had been required to produce such evidence as he
had at the tine he uttered the charge of fraud in
the House, or at the time when tho intcrroqatorv
was put to him. lie now offered tho certificate Of
magistrate going to correct the error in form of
the paper he had before produced. The magistrate, |
Mr.. w. undcrrtood, declared in this certificate |
hat the mistake had been his own. This papcr |
might become material, in order TO okviate tho OBJ
loction of counsel to Tic affidavit. Ii did seem To
him. that with this explanation tho counsel would
withdraw his objections.
Mr.. Burgcs was surprised to hear gentlemen
talk of the affidavit having no date. They must
know that the facts must have been anterior to the
time OF taking tic affidavit. 1t might have no
certificate of date, but il was given, and had a |
date; and the question, when il taken, did not
touch MS validity or crcdibility. The question was
not when did 1T come into existence? but, was it
rue! 1T the House determined not to hear when !
It did come into existence, they ought not 10 insist
Upon their ignorance Of that fact al objection to
he affidavit. Those who wished to know about it. |
would be satisfied by this certificatc-thoso who |
did not wish this would not be satisfied at any rate
MI Carson thought the question might be easily |
settled by adyortng TO the form of the interrogato
ry pat to tho witness After quoting the words of it,
Mr. L. proceeded to observe that, if tho House per-
NIT evidence 10 be hunted up, and brought there
every day, when would the trial end The witness
nad told the House that no had resolved this pa
per this morning. The objection of counsel TO tho
"H6avit had been Withdrawn; where then was the
necessity of producing the paper to meet the o5
lection which tho respondents counsel h,d with !
jrawn lie hoped tho House would not receive the
Nr. Folder to order. If the House did NOT
adhere to tho rules they had laid down 10 could
not sec when they would get through the trial
lie thea quoted the rule.
The Chair replied, that this was not an objection
by member of the House but by the counsel cr
the accused. 1t therefore did not come within the
rule.
VI. Nini n1, rnscf o 81 fI1nf he l1n,nd IL L..