Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1832-04-23

had been misunderstood in his testimony. His
colleague never had said that he had no intention oil
i~mpating fraud to the Respondent. He had said
that the words uttered by him in debate were
not intended to impute fraud I'd that individual.
But he had not exonerated him from that imputa.
ton; and if he was permitted to 60 on, he would
explain what he wished to have said.
Mr.. Archer then withdrew his motion for the
present, understanding that it was the desire of
the witness to add to what he Ind said upon the
first member Of the question proposed to him.
Mr.. Stanbery then proceeded with his testi-
mony, and stated substantially that though in
making the remarks which had been quoted, he
had not intended to lmpute fraud to Governor
Houston, yet, If he was called upon now to ex-
press an opinion whether he be guilty Of frand or
not
When Mr.. Stanbery had gone thus far. he
was interrupted BY an objection to the relevancy
OF the testimony he was about to give, SO far as It
consisted of the opinion Of the witness.
This gave rise to a conversation which ended
in a motion by Mr.. Alexander, Of Va. to recon-
slider the vote by which the House yesterday
agreed that the question should be put to the wit
ness.
After a good deal of debate on this question,
on motion Of Mr.. Stewart, the Previous Cues
ton was demanded and sustained by the House.
The question was then taken by Yeas and
Nays, on rseonsidering the vote Of yesterday, and
decided in the negative-Yeas 62, Nays ia.
The interrosatory propoupded to the witness
by the Respondents counsel was again read, and
Mr.. Stanbery 1.-THE witness) resumed his evil
dence. He went on to say, in substance, that he
did not desire to be understood, by what he had
already stated, Of acquitting Gov. Houston of par
ticipation in this fraud. He was a private citi-
zen, and he had no object in Ringing his cha
racter in question. But if called upon to express
an opinion upon the subject. he would say that
he did, at the time of ~uttering the remarks which
were the ground of the interrogatory, and that
he did now, believe that Gov. Houston did par
~ticipate in the attempted fraud. He should state
the evidence that he had of his participating in it.
Mr. s. said he was a member of this House in
1880, at the time the proposals for making the
contract for Indian ratiOns were published. He
was Informed that the object Of the proposals was
to invite a contract
At this point Mr.. S. was interrupted by ex.
c~eptions to the nature Of the testimony as irrele-
want.
Sundry motions, divers questions Of order, and
numerous speeches were made, which occupied
perhaps two hours. At length
Mr. Stantery resumed his testimony, stating
why, 10 1880, he believed General Houston to
be concerned, &c. After which he produced, as
the evidence upon which no now believed the
same thing, a deposition of Luther Blake
Here the Counsel for the Respondent objected
to this deposition being read as evidence, because
of informali,y, and want of date, for want OF
proof that it was the best testimony which the
case admitted of.
Finally, on motion OF a Member, the deposit
ton was read at the Clerks table, that the
Members might know, as well as the Counsel,
what ~as the character of the paper.
The question then arose, whether this paper
should be received as a part of the witnesses tes-
timony; and, hereupon, the question being consi-
Jered a new aud serious oneA.s four o'clock the
House postponed further hearing Of the case to
II o'clo, k Tomorrow. And then
The House adjourned.