Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1832-05-24
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,,
Monday, May Ii, 1882.
ANOTHER BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

itldt nc nelN III Ills ndiu Il ISttcT uoiu u
Mr. Davis, of South Carolina, one of tho
witnesses who had testified on the late
trial of Samuel Houston, which had
been presented to him by person sta
ting his name to be Alexander Demitry,
of Louisiana, as the friend OF said Da-
Wis, which, together with the statement
oi the facts connected with it, he asked
Lave to send to the Chair, that it might
be read for the information OF the House.
The question on the reading was put
and carried, and thereupon the letter
from MIR. Davis, was read ut the Clerks
table, as follows;
Browns Hotel, May l2, 1892.
Hon. +. COOKE:
Sn-During my examination before
the House of Representatives in the case
Of Gen. Houston, you very HaPertinent-
y asked, among other questions, my bu-
siness in this city. Wrilst the trial Of
Gen Houston was pending l deferred
calling on you for the explanation which
/ now demand through my friend Gene
raj IDENTIFY. am, very
Respectfully, your most obed'.
f. S. DAVIS.
Mr.. Crane, Of Ohio, moved the fol-
lowing resolution:
Resolved, That the communication Of
the Hon. T.. Cooke, a member from
Ohio, be referred to Select Commit
tee, consisting Of Sc ven members, and
that said Committee have power to send
for persons and papers.
MIR. Jewc,t tl VI farther suggested that
the Committee should also inquire whe-
ther the interrogatory which had been
put by the gentleman from Ohio to Dr.
Davis, when witness, had been justif-
able or not. II was his own opinion, That
the interrogatory, which had Occasioned
SO much offence to the witness, was W.
relevant to the case, and liable to be ur'-
derstood as being an attempt to impose
on the witness.
Mr.. Cooke vindicated the propriety Of
the interrogatory; it had been propoua-
ded while the witness was under cEoss
examination. Every lawyer must ad-
nlit at once, il was fairly within the rule,
Its object had been to elicit the degreo
of intimacy, and the inAentity of object
and pursuits between DR.. Davis & Mr..
Houston, and thence to bring home up
on DIR. Davis the fact, if it existed, Of his
having participated, in the outrage up
on Mr.. Stanberry. 1t was an every day
practice in courts of law, and the inter-
ogatory, before it was propounded, had
been approved by older and wiser heads
than his. Indeed the same practice had
been sanctioned in more than one in
stance, during the same trial. The
House had inquired into the object Of
Luther Blake's visit to the city, aud al
so of his departure from it, and nobody
had objected to those interrog atories as
irrelevant. Mr.. G. disclaimcd all know
ledge OF Dr. ID. :, and all personal hostili-
ty towards him. Such feeling bad not
been INDUCED, and should not be impu-
ted to him. The interrogatory had been
propounded after full deliberation, not
with a view of doing injustice to that
witness, but to elicit facts having an i'm
portant bearing upon the investigation
then before the House. The letter as
sailed him, not for an act done in his
private or individual capacity, but for
duty performed and right exercised as
public servant, which he had believed
at the time, and still believes, to be clear
ly and incontestibly within his official
competency as a member of that House.
Viewing 1t in this light, and promising
that he did not come here to vindicate
his own rights or the rights oihis constit-
uents by resort to violence, but by
faithful and unintimdated discharge Of
his duties upon that floor, he had felt
bound to present the matter to the House,
as well to apprise its members OF the sys-
TEN by which we were surrounded, as to
make known to the people of this Union
something of the circumstances under
which their Representative were COM
PEELED to lcgislate upon the great and
nome ntous interests Of our common coun-
try. :,
Mr.. Arnold, Of Tennessee, said no
should vote for the postpoDement Of this
resolution. He was free to confess that
it would give him great pain to do so, but,
all things considered, he thought that
would be the best disposition of the sub
jeci: and he hoped the House would in
duIge him in briefly stating the reasons
for that opinion, and, in doing so, he
must refer to one or two Of the chief facts
in the case of breach Of privilege which
had Just received its finale.
He had no doubt that the facts stated
by the gentleman from Ohio did cousti-
tute a breach Of privilege; that that let
ter, and the threat preceding It, wero
part Of a course intended to intimidate
and oyerawe the House. He had not q