Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1832-05-01

sG%S:w FHSS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,.

CASr ar "a MrEL NOrSTNN.

II. II.
Mr.. Houston was then put to the bar and tho
eX min tiiou Of witnesses ..ps resumed
The Hon. Felix Gruudy, the Hon. Mr. Bucllncr
and the Hon. Nr. Upton, Of the Senate, DIR IIaw
and Nr. Shaw, were scvcrallv examined
Tho Respondents Counsel having put to tho last
witness an nterro~ntcry TO Luther ilako's habits
III respect tn tcmpCvance,
Mr.. Wickliti1 said lac did not riso to oppose the
prosecution OF this inquiry. lie did not know Blake
and never had seen him; but he could not sit here
and the rules otcvidcncc violated with the sane
tion Of that House IL submitted to gent ic,ncn
whether if the design of Counsel was 10 diScrcdt
witness the question to his habits of temperance
was tho proper question. lie I'd known many
very honest and CrCdItr6le men whose habits wore
not strictly temperate.
Mr. Key insisted that tho inquiry wasa vcrv PRO.
per one. II had been shown tu.t the affidavit had
been taken at the instance of Prcntiss and in Prem
tisSs handwriting; ought he not to he allowed to
prove that the witness mpOtcnt drunken
man, liable TO be made tool Off There was no.
thing ohiS writing the affidavit but the signaturc;
and from its face it appeared to have been made in
obedience 10 PvcntSS. Blake had left thcrc not on
account of his business but leaving his business, he
had gone suddenly OF: it not proper to inquire
what were the habits of Blakcl
Mr.. Nicklltlo replied that if tho question had
been confined to inquiry into the fact, whether
Blake was drunk when Tire affidavit was given and
the witness sworn, no should not object. |, would
be competent TO shcw that the affidavit was not his
act and deed. But when the object was To shew
that Blake was habitualy intcnpcratc, Mr.. w. must
object He did not know Blake and never had
seen him, but he would not assa the rules Of cvi.
dencc III order to provo his general intern peruncc.
The Counsel might prove what his moral cha
racter: whether nc was entitled to credit; whether
he was i'll the habit OF telling the truth; and what
was the estimation in which he was held in society.
But the Counsel could not inquire into any specific
vice. Mr.. w. WAS constrained to object from a
that they violating tho rules and princi.
pies obscrvedb by all tribunals in hearing testimony.
The question being about TO be taken,
Irwin SlnIt for l,,,N .,,,lN
were ordered by the House
Being taken, they stood as foows-Ycas IS,
Nays 70.
4 query having boon put by the counsel as to
what Mr. Prcntss had declared after the rcspon-
dent had been arrested under the order of the
House
Mr.. Huntington said. that he should not object TO
tins discussion being conducted in Il perfect
~ liberal; hut he could not sit and witness eX
nmincd as TO mere hearsay declarations He would
not, however, detan tho House by any argu.
m2-t.
Mr. Key said, chat the enquiry was as to tho Gre
dit to be given to pGrts affidavit of Blaze: was
it not competent to enquire under what circum.
stances it had been taken? lie was Offering in evil
dencc the declarations of prCntsS; in order to SHOW
the resentment and bitterness by which he vas
actnated, and his determination to have Houston
convicted. Was that not proper evidence? Did
II not affect tic character of the aflidavtI Was
not all the affidavit ia the hand. writing Of VIM
Prcni>s, and taken at his instance? If he could
prove tho declarations Of Prontiss, and show vhv
and how tn" affidavit was takon, would ii not ena.
bic the House to Judge how far the affidavit was
ercdibc' As it was here and or parte, he should
at least prove the declarations of tho man at - hose
instance It had been taken.
Mr.. Huntington replied that William Prontiss
was not on trial and was not witness. Whan
paper was read, if the party not in Court, no
inquiry could be made into the declarations of third
persons
Mr. Kerr demanded the yeas and NAYS; and thew
were ordered.
Mr.. Adams said that as he objected to tho inter
rogatory, he supposed he might give hi, lea.
Sons.
Tho Chair decided that he could not
Mr.. Adams took appeal, but after some con-
vcrsation, consented to withdraw it.
Mr. Key offered TO withdraw the interrogato.
~.
MIR. Burgess objected to its being withdrawn.
Tie considered it triiing question when it was
offered and ailcr the House had been detained al.
most an hour in deciding II, then it was Withdrawn
treated.
Mr. Wayne said that rs he understood the ruic,
unless some member adopted tho intCrrogatory, the
Counsel could withdraw it without leave of any
one 90 unless the gentleman adoPed this tr!liHg
1nIerrogatory, it could still he withdrawn.
Mr.. Burgess said that he had objected because ho
could not sanction such procedure. But as he
oIu not desire 10 throw any obstacle in the OF
ProGeeGln%' he would withdraw his objection
MI Key then Withdrew the in,crrogatorv.
Mr. Adams objected on tho same ground TO ano.
tncr query respecting conversation which passed
a. Nr' Grnndy's room; but the objection was not
sustained by the House.
The examination being closed and the testimo-
ny having been read to tho witnesscs
The further hcari"gof the case was postponed
TO ii O'Clock tomorrow, and the House adjourn
81.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE.
MONDAY, ArRL %.
The hour of II o'clock meridian having ARR.
we'd
Samuel Houston, accompanied by his Counsel.
was placed AT the Bar of the House and
MR. GAVE Johnson, one of the members Of the
House from the State of Tennessee was further
examined and testified as follows:
l"estion by The accnscd.-Did Mr. Stanbcrv toll
you that the statement of his remarks did not no.
cessarily imPutc fraud 10 the accuscdl
1nSwer.-lIc did not.
question by NJ. UglCcs-Was or was not Gov
Houston very mild aud dccorous i'm his expression
ana conduct Mt the time he first presented the let
ter to you, and did you not think that he felt him
sell seriously aggrcycd by the reflection contained
IN the speech and the manner Of its publication be
5oTc itS time IN debate, and the note appended TO
lhe speech as II appeared in the ncwspapcre7
1RSWer.-I did not observe any passion or feel.
ing IN relation to that nlttcr on the part Of Gov
tloustou at any timc until On my delivery 10 him
~ Mr. St1nbc7r's letter addressed to me. i certain
y thought he felt himself agg-icycd by the publ:r1
ZION IN 'hc newspaper, but do not remember he
Eyer eve. uttered IN my presence any thing from which
that impression drawn.
GHe&tioH by Mr. IintoH.--When you delivered
air. St'nbcrys letter to Mr.. H. did Won inform him
MF. Houston, that by your construction of the let
YER ne nr - insisted upon his privilege a mem.
bor Of the House Of Representatives
Answcr.--I informed Governor Il. orthc diri,pI /
ties that had in the first place, as to the con. .
Struction OF the letter. also informed him Of the
consultation had had with member Of the House
IN relation to the construction and ofthc construct
q rr F.rfN