Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1832-05-01
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,.
LUe<{., Lea. 1..-..I


the trial until Friday next, at IL o'clock.
Mr. Sanbery observed that there testimony mate
rial to his character, yet behnd-tesmony which would
go to contradict the testimony already given by Mr. Buck
ner in all the circumstance Of il which were calculated to
nure his character, cast rdicue upon him and that
testimony he was prepared now produce.
Mr. Doddrdge withdrew for the present his motion for
postponement
Mr. Ashley repealed the imputaion cast upon the char
acero OF Mr. Buckner MIR. A. knew nothing of the
action In questions but he convinced Mr. Buckner had
anticipated nothing Of the affair." and that whatever he
had stated or should state respecting it, was true.
MIR. JONATHAN ELLIor jr Mr. JONATHAN Ell
LOT, SEN and Mr.. BLAIR, having been examined
Mr. Sanbery said he wished state the House that
he should be able TO prove, by the Hon. Mr. Ewing that
in other conversations Mr. Buckner had related the cir
cunsances otihe ARRAY without any OF those circumstan
ces which were calculated TO throw disgrace and dcule
upon him. Mr.. Ewing was absent; and he did not
know whether he would return to-day. There were al
SO other witnesses, whose he did vet know bn
who would be able to prove that Mr. Ewing had given
very different account Of what Mr. Buckncr had told him.
from what that gentleman had delivered when on exami
nation before the House.
Mr. Key Counsel for Gov. Houston) replied that ac-
coring to practice frequent in the courts the
would consent to admit what Mr. Sanbery desired to prove
Mr. Stanbery, not asserting TO this proposal, Mr. bod.
withdraw it "
Mr.. Stanbery having stated his wish to have Duff Green
examined AS witness, and objection being made to tho
MIR. GREEN accordingly introduced and sworn:
and MIR Stanbery having offered the following interroga
tory:
attempting 10 give TO Gov Houston contract the sup
ply Of Indian raons in 1880!
Mr. Wickliffe objected TO the nterogatory He said
he would greatly have preferred that the duty should be
performed by another; but if other gentleman would
step into his place. he would proceed and give OF the
reasons which induced him to oppose the question. 1t
must necessarily lead to the Investigation Of transaction
which, according TO his opinion of the duty OF the House,
had nothing TO do with this trial Whatever opinions
might be held either in out OF that House, what
ever his might be, to the transaction alluded
TO- tnere could be but one as to its pcrtnency TO the
question before them He had at first objected the
lnerrogatory which proposed 10 60 into the evidence
in possession Of the gentleman from Ohio when he
had alluded to this matter in his Speech and every
stance since Mr. w. had expressed the same opinion
The Counsel however, had been INDUCED with perms-
sion present it, and the witness answered the in
teogatoy Since that, the accused had introduced evil
dence not Tor the purpose OF dsprovng of the crcum
stances stated the affidavit but discred the witness
The House had not heard any evidence dsprove the
statement Of Mr. Stanbery farther than TO question the
credibity OF the affidavit he had produced And now,
what were they asked TO do The House was asked TO
permit witness to state what he knew of the late Secre
tary OF War and his in relation his giving to the ac
cused certain contract for Indian raon nd for WHAT
to enlghten their minds the question whether the
rights OF the House had or had not been violated? Or
was intended and used TO aggravate the punishment f
any! Again. to the question of expediency was il not
wholly ineXpedient TO present the House in such sua-
ton that it should be mpracticabe that all the requisite
evidence could not be produced Ii might become impor-
tant to show what the Secretary OF War had
tain time: would that be proper evidence against the
cuscd! IL might prove important show what some other
person had said with view 10 show, quo amino, the
contract had been made. On 10Th grounds therefore, of
competency and expedency, Mr. w. object TO the
interrogatory He objected for another reason las he
would have done, ALSO TO much of the testimony from
unwingness trouble the House freuuently il
the consumption OF the time ofhe House. Let the inves-
igalon oil this subject 60 TO Select Committee who
could take the dispositions OF all the parties implicated
give the whole matter tboroug xamnaon In making
these objections he had discharged very hut
an imperative duty.
Mr.. Sanbery replied that it was not for him to argue
this question The House had allowed the first nerroga-
tory TO be put and thereby determined the question Tor
him. Mr. b said be had p8 my tIeeH charged with max
ing false accusation He offered proof the ac-
cusation true He aware OF the reluctance felt
by gentlemen TO put themselves forward i'm such case:
he of the danger they must encounter in so do
ing he of the threats uttered by the Executive
against any member OF that House who should dare 10
question his acts But he willing to bear his bosom
| TO the assassins He pledged himself TO the proof OF
what he had stated: all he asked compulsory pro-
| cess.
Mr.. Bates of Name enquired whether the gentleman
had intended TO be understood saying that the Presden
OF the u States had threatened the safety of any member
OF that House?
Mr.. Stanbery replied, eyes did saw so: and am ready
with the proof of it.'
Mr.. Wicklfe said that had not been from such con-
sderatos those just referred that he had made his
objection to the inerrogatory, but from deep conviction
OF duty II was not from any objection to an investiga-
ton conducted in the proper form. 1t had not been from
any apprehensons TO the consequences because he
occupied what might be called neutral position as to this
matter, and thought it his duty, having some regard
and some hope as to possible termination of the present
session OF Congress Seeing the importance OF the bust
ness which yet remained before the House, he could not
consent TO the investigation of an alleged transaction
whether true or false which had any thing to do with
the question.
Suppose the charge should turn out TO be true how
far could direct the judgment of that House as TO the
guilt or innocence of the accused Suppose proved un
true, the accused could not go into that his defence
And should the Congress OF the United States an in
vestigaton which must waste perhaps three months of m
Tune: For some OF the witnesses, he understood ere in
New York. there witnesses in Arkansas and some
In Florida Besides, the character an individual wa.
involved very deeply in it, and who might himself be
Witness ii not, who should least have an oppou-
nifty TO be heard! (he alluded the late Secretary of War
He could not be influenced by partially if the newspa
pers spoke true for according them the individual and
he were no great friends.
Atter great deal of discussion on points of order
Mr. Stanbery modified his intenogatory and presented
II in the following form:
Do you know Of an attempt the part of General III
radulently TO obtain from the late Secretary at War
contract for Indian raons in 1880! State all the know
ledge you have OF the transaction
Mr. ,Wlckiffe renewed the objections he had before
made He wished that subject to be thoroughly examn.
ed by select committee, and not introduced into th
trial.
The question taken admitting the interoeatory
TO be put to the Witness and decided by Yeas and NAYS
as stated in the extract from the Journal of this day.
Mr. Sanberry said that he considered the vote lust Ia
Ken as expressive OF the of the House, that no que
res were TO be put in relation the fraud he had nohnp
farther TO ask the witness, and Mr. Green was then re-
moved.
/ MIR. Doddrdge renewed his motion for posponemen
| oil further proceeding until Friday; but Withdrew i
on learning that Mr.. Ewing, Senator from Ohio who
had been summoned as witness now in his seat ir
i the Senate, and ready TO testify if sent for.