Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1832-05-01
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE
TueSddU, .IDrI 2I


CASE SAMUEL HOUSTON
During the examination OF DIR. Davis OF South Carroll.
ma, query offered by Mr.. Cooke of Ohio the latter
clause of which required the witness to state what was hi
business in visiting this city?
The interrOgaory objected to by several members.
withdrawn
On tho putting Of question Davis manifested
sensation; and when the objection had been raised
he requested that the question might be put, adding that
lie ready and willing TO reply TO il, TO any other
inquiry from that gentleman His object in visiting
the city laudable, and he ready and willing TO
state it.
On leaving the stand, and he was in the act of re-
ing from 1t TO the seats in the lobby he passed Mr..
Speigh of N c. and remark passed betw cen them
hearing which, Mr.. Stanbery (who sat next 10 Mr.
opegh Immediately rose In his place and observed, that
act of contempt of the House had lust been COM
nied by the witness who had uttered threat which he
presumed intended for his colleague (hr. Cooke }
The witness had said that ''there would another
brought up before the House,, words that effect If
this not breach OF the privileges of the House. he
was at loss to know what could be so considered sem
sation created by this Several gentlemen
10 address the Chair
Mr.. Stanbery referred Mr. Speght, in confirmation
Of the statement he had made.
Mr. Speght inquired whether the gentleman me ant TO
impicate him in the charge
MIR. Stanbcry discamed all intention do so, but said
he had called upon him confirm contradict the
ment as he had heard the language used
MIR. Speght, making farther reply,
MIR. Bates OF Mass. proposed that the witness be re-
called and required to explain. He thought this due
the witness we'll the House. Perhaps a difFe-
rent explanation might be given Of the words he had
used.
Mr. wicifc objected 10 this course II any breach oil
privilege should be committed the House would such
measures as might become proper but the threat
ed (Which Mr. W. was far from jusIiiyng) had not been
uttered the stand intended for the Of the House
he thought the House would consult its dignity by
taking no order in regard to il. He hoped gentlemen
not going to resolve themselves into conservaors
the peace and bind the witness for his good beha
viour.
No motion being made, the House passed to the exami
nation OF the next witness.
EXTRACT FROM THE JoURNAL1
Tuesday, AprH 81.
Samuel Houston, accompanied by his Counsel, was
placed at the bar OF the House, and
THOMAS MURRAY, jr., witness the part of the ac
cused sworn and testified as follows:
Question by the Gccused.-Arc you acquainted with
Luther Blake? If what his habits OF temperance
Has he been in the habit of getting drunk nearly eve
ry evening night What his situation when he LEFT
the city, and was not his going away sudden and
pected?
.Gns,oer.I have been acquainted with him nearly two
years During his stay here, of an evening have seer
him under the influence of liquor frequently. His ha
bits believe, while he here, very irregular.
saw him when he getting into the carriage TO leave
the city: he then evidently under the influence of IL
quer, very much His going was very unexpected
me. ! saw him i'm the morning, and asked him when he
going! He said lie did not know. I saw him agar
at noon he then said he going in hour. He wen
at 3ocock; saw him get into the carriage and he left the
city.
Question by me aeeused.--Do you know the cause o.
said Blake's sudden departure from the city,
.4usWer-I do not.
Question by The acct@ed.-Had you not previously un
destood from him. that he engaged in business here
that would detain him some time at Washington
.HnStCeT--i did
Question by the aecused.--whatisthc general charac
ter Of said Blake, for truth2
.AHSCer--As far as ] have understood, bad never
heard his word doubted on any important subject
Question by The COHHlifee.-On what day did said
Blake leave this city
AHSWer-I think on last Tuesday.
Question by The CoumHtee-Was there such partcu
lar intimacy between you and Luther Blake that yot
would necessarily be acquainted with his movements lonl
before this occuuedi
AusOeT.--I think there was
question by the C0nHifee-What was that connox
iOni
AnsWer.-We were 10 habits fdaily intercourse hav
ing 20 attend Tie department the same business; tina
was the settlement Of his account, and the settlement
the account Of the agent VA, here attending tor
Question by me GcCHsed.-D Do you or do you not DO
eye tigt said Blskes sudden departure from the city
was owing 10 his having given his affidavit about the
cused