Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1832-04-30

&
son
Aaurr,.-No person, that remember as pas
ssl ont oI my 'ol,us saw nobody
NJ Ja.apII .Hee "a member al ID. House iron
tn Stte ofOio vas then sworn in MS place am
testi,d.s follow
O4,itos. b. the aeeusrd-When and iron
whom DID yoa hr5t hatr OF ihe affidavit Of Luther
3Ioa,--aud dad you I.no~ before Il VAS gwen, thai
h.. could prove Tie TACT therein stated and from
whom
Aasrsr On last Monday morning. ! am not
certain whether beiore The House was calIcd 10 OF
der dr after. beug ~ aly scat Nj Pf5niss touched
me on tn shoulder aHi oDser. od ld lie had an at
fdayt winch lac htlded 20 nc and read i. did
not know Of the utldayitbeioro- do not know MI
Blake, OF whether he able to prove the facts set
forth or not received the affidavit III my sat
and supposed the aiidasit was handed u ne be-
cause hnd been the person vino Instituted lhIs en-
qury by amotIon ia ths House
Qacst5oa by thu aceused-Wos the affidavit
then sworn To, and ON what hour Oh Monday morn
Ing did YOU receive It
Ansvcr.--It was sworn to the hour cannot sly
preclscy--thc affidavit was never out Of my pos
session except for few moments to take copy OF
1t, until II sent 10 my colleague after the first
Iatnrrosatory had been Fouuded-upon hearing
which read, requested the door-kccpcrto hand II
to my colleague believing 1t 10 be evidence under
the mtcnogutory
Qucstlou, by the occuscd-Do you know in
whose handwriting II Is writer's
AnSvlr.--I do not know the handwriting.
Qncstioa by the accused.-Did you understand
when you received tho affidavit that said Blake had
loft he city, and had you shown the affidavit your
colleague before you sent il to HIM, or informed
HIM of It's contents
AnSwcr--I did not know at the time Of receiving
the affidavit tina, MI Blake had left the city
never showed the affidavit to my colleague, Mr.
Stanberry, or ever told him any Of the contents If
he received any knowledge Of utter It's coming IN
10 my hands, he must have got lttrpa some Of my
messmatcs, to Il few Of whom rcad il, or from some
other person, but not from me-l showed II TO no
,Ahrr person. think showed ii to Gen Green, am
not crrtan--be asked to see il
question, by the accu,cd-Is the William Prem
tbs from whom you received the affidavit thc same
person whose letter has been lately published in the
fcIesraph7
Answer-I understand ito be SOL 10 not know
who handed the letter to the TeegropA-I 90 not
know that there two VIM Pttntls,cs
lseqlo1. by the accused. - " as, or was net the
knowledge ofths atidauit intended to he kept llom
the accused and was, OF was not such the request
Of sad Prentlss, when it was handed to You?
AaureJ.--Mr Preutisa made no such request to
mc He did not say how or IN what way | should
Use the left ii entirely 10 my own discretion
The testimony Of Mr. Vance being here closed,
NJ. Caft Ja5asoH one OF tho House, from the
STATE of Tennessee, was sworn IN his place, and
testified as follows
twill perhaps be more satisfactory 70. me 10 com
nenec and give narrative of all the circumstances
Of tins affair, It's far as have been connected with
hcn, If such narrative would snit the purpose OF
.hc counsel IN proposing tins utenoguory. Coy.
Houston applied TO me II tAe lobby OF the House
10 present letter from hlm to Mr.. Stambcrry the
date ofthe letter which has been given IN evidence
viii show on what day. When Gov. Houston
applied to me to present tins letter, having under
9tsood that some difficulty existed between him and
Mr. Stanberry hositatcd about taking the mote,
IestI should be involved in It's consequences and
to Coy Houston whit my apprcllrn, ons
were on that head and ANS going 10 apologize Ia
hin for hot taking the iv,t=r Gov Houston, how
ever, Slapped me by informing me that the letter
was not o! the character that Iapprchendcd He
ihon opened the ietter and asked me 10 read Il
Which | did after having read tie letter, and
seeing the naturc Of II, | informed Gov Huus-
ton that would curry the letter. hut ON condition
chat WAS TO be no farther concerned IN amy thng
that might grow outofthat letter that thought ii
my duty to dehverthe letter he had asked 1t but
that desired not To be connected with him as n
friend IN any future transaction that might grow
out of with THIS understanding received the let
Ter and delivered it TO Mr. Sanbeny in his seat
to hun TINT Coy Houston would like
to have an answer to his letter early conye-
mont. ON the next morning about the time the
House met MIR Creighton of Ohio delivered to me
the reply. discovered that the letter Was address
ed to me personally, and read Il with some con
siderable stUpr,zc-whcu looked over the letter,
the general apprehension that he could not rrcog
nize the night Of Mr. Houston 10 make the request
IN his letter induced INC to believe that
Mr. Stanhrrry either meant to take personal eX-
reptIon 10 Coy. Houston, which might involve mc
IN difficulty with him, or that he intended to avail
himself of his Parliamentary privilege IN not re-
roYnizIug his right think then mentioned TO
Mr. Creighton the difficulty which bad IN regard
10 the proper construction ofthc letter and that If
should consider personal exception was intended
by it To BIZ taken 10 Gov Houston | should be
personally involved IN the controversy, winch Tt
GREETED, ard should dslite. | then asked Of Mr.
Creighton an explanation whether Mr. Stunberry
intended To avail himself of his Parliamentary pri-
vdege III not recognizing the right ofGoy Houston
81 intended to take personal exception 10 HIM. Mr.
Creighton replied TO me, as undersoodh him, either
hat he had no explanations to give" OF that he
was not authorized TO give any beyond the face of
the letter nsefn think then replied to Mr.
Creighton something like this ; that If MI Stanbe-
~ did intend TO take personal exception TO Cover
nor Houston, he would find an individual who
would play the gnme out with HIM. | said some
hing to this effect, and perhaps used this very
language. Some short time after the conversation
between Mr. Creighton and myself, after rejecting
m the subject, went 70 my desk, with q view of
letter to Mr.. Stanbcry, in reply to the
Dne which he had addressed to me- demanding of
him more explicit statement whether he excepted