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

Resolued, That the committee appointed 10 examine
witnesses the trial Of Samuel Houston be directed TO
conduct the further prosecution OF said trial. the
of this House, and that the Speaker OF this House be d-
rected TO issue subpGnas for such witnesses said commit
tee may deem necessary.
But before any action thereon the House ON nation
oil Mr. Coulter, adjourned.
lExrRAcr FROM THE JouRNALl
Saturday, AprH 2lst, 1882.
mr. man, oil North Carolina, moved the following
"Resoiced, That no member of the House. except the
committee appointed for the management of the trial now
pending before the House, be permitted to discuss qucs-
lions pertaining the trial OF Samuel Houston, until The
examination OF witnesses is closed that all questions be
propounded through the committee in writing and that the
members OF the committee alone the part of the House
be allowed to object discuss the relevancy or ire
ievancy oil testimony thus precludng any farther debate
upon The decision OF such questions objections
And, after debate ON the said resolution
motion was made by Mr. John Reed that the said re.
solution do lie on the table; And thereupon
| Mr. Hall withdrew the said resolution.
Mr. Wicklilie. then moved the following resolution:
Resofued That no member of the House shall be per.
mted TO debate questions growing out of the examination
oil witnesses, and the introduction Of testimony ON tina
TRIAL oil the case OF Samuel Houston; that the right to OBJ.
ect TO the introduction of evidence debate questions
sg ,hereon, shall be confined 10 the committee area-
ny appointed who shall be authorized TO conduct the
animation and discuss questions arising upon the ntrodc
uon OF testimony on the part of the House
| And after debate thereon,
MIR. WicklilIe withdrew the said resolution
ana samuel Houston, accompanied by his counsel, was
placed at the Bar OF the House.
The question required, Shall the affidavit of Iu,ber
Blake be received, the objection of the accused TO the
contrary Notwithstanding; when
said affidavit. "
Mr. Stanberry then offered paper as containing GER
uhcate oil the date OF the affidavit Of Luther Blake.
10 the reception of which paper the accused objected
And the question was then stated Shall the said paper
be received! when
motion made by Mr.. Creighton that the said pa
per be read
| And the question being put,
II was decided in the negative.
And on motion OF Mr. Vinton, leave was given 10 Mr.
Sanherry to withdraw the said paper and hereupon Mr.
s. withdrew said paper
Mr.. Stanberry then further dcposed as follows:
The affidavit furnished by MIR. Blake was handed TO
me by my colleague, Mr.. Vance knew nothing of Mr.
Blake, or the circumstances under which it was taken
who requested it. have heard, however, that he is
gentleman OF respeclabiiy and that his business called
HIM from the city, he would have remained and given
his testimony. Although / had such knowledge OF this
contemplated fraud as satisfied my mind about the
peIod mat IL took place, yet before had made the
marks 10 the House, had read the recent exposures
mat transaction in the Telegraph; and the stated by
the Editor OF that paper confirmed nv former convictions:
ana oeeve, that the fraud be substantiated by the
witnesses whose names proceed give TO the House
VIZ; thomas L. Mckenny, John Shackford, Hon. John
pen oil tennessee, Mr. Branch, member of this House.
Dun Green of this city, Gen Van Fossen of N York
the Hon. Mr. Dickson, member of this House and VIM
Prentiss OF this city.
1t will be necessary in order TO make ont ,bo alec,
10 nave me proposals for the contract which are or ought
to be- OH the files of the War Department. and the cores
pondence OF the individuals who made the proposaIs win
the Secretary of War | have nothing further IN sa, in
answer to the interrogatory.
Question by The accused.-whcrc did you receive the
alhdavit oil Luther Blake, presented yesterday?
4ns,oer-I believe received after The last inter
oga'oy was propounded, but before had given any an
wer 10 IT, believe 1t was during the time the interro-
satofy was under discussion.
Question 6y the accused.-When did you first hear of
IT, and from whom! -
.anstDer-l knew nothing about it.
question 6y the dccused.-Do YOU know how lone tle
SAID Blake remained in the city, after giving the aiida-
,, ana was he In the city when you received the a
dnScer.-I knew nothing about it. have never seen
he man ana know nothing about it, except from the
Question by The aceued.-Had you any information of
his having lett the city, and when did he leave it?
.HnSWT-At the time presented the paper l had no
information whether he had left the city, ANYTHING about
NJ since have learned that he left the city on the I7th
OF this month";
Question by the dcc,lsed-Was he reouested 70 re-
main and give evidence, and by whom
Anstcer-I heard from Mr.. Preniss of this city, that
ne request him TO renain but the urgency of his
ness would not permit him.
Question by the accuSed.-Had you heard of the aff-
dayit before you received ibid you learn whose in
stance il given?
ans,cer-l did not hear OF it before ii was presented to
me- have understood since offered it, that it was la
ken at the instance and request OF Mr.. Prentiss.
writing ii is?
.fnStCer.-No.
question 6y the accused-Do you know when the said
affidavit was taken
-dnstoer-No only from the certificate of the ,napis
ale In my possession; by which appears that was ia
question Oy the dccused-Are the papers now shown
10 you, the numbers of the Telegraph to which YOU al
Jude in your testimony and in your remarks as printed in
the lntelligencer OF the I'd instant!
Accompanying this nterogatory were printed copies
o. The nited States Telegraph newspapers the 10th and
2Sh March, 1892.
dnSDeT-Ihere were several publications in the Tele-
graph; some before, and since remarks alude
to those before my remarks.
question by the Gccused.-Did you mention TO the
friends with whom you say you consulted as TO the reply
would be proper for you make the note of the ac
cused that you had not intended in your remarks TO i'm
pute fraud to the accused
fnsiceT-l drew my answer the same day on which
received the note OF Mr. Houston at my desk, without
consulting any person. In the evening, / consulted NV
which sentence stricken out and some other t1inq
modification made do not recolect whether mentioned
to my FRIEND that had not intended charge him with
fraud. was much astonished at getting note from him
on the subject believed the note received from Mr.
Houston was designed TO give him preence to commit
personal violence upon not 10 redress any grievance
Of his, but to crafty the vengeance ofothers.
Question dy the GccuSedDd you state that belief last
mentioned to those lIiends2
HnS0er.-l think there some conversation of the
kind.
Question by the Gccused.-Who were the friends with
whom you consulted?
.dHSiCeF.-GeneTa Vance Mr.. CREIGHTON Mr. Ewing
OF Ohio they not all present al one consultation
Mr. Mercer was present at time. MIR. Tayler of
New York consulted by lie was boarding at the
same house MIR. Ewing considered my confidential
friend and adviser, particularly There was some
conversation also with Mr. Arnold and the members of
the mess in which board. They did not ali know it,
am confident there was conversation with Mr. Arnold