Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1842-12-17

- ,.,s l,ta The difference between Jenny
come out" and " Come cut, Jemrny. IN iesaIu 20
the pararrapi, Of which his colleague compiahea' ne
would saw Il him that there was not that sanc.,y
,. loud The majesty of that House, that the
secretary of War could not say all that was sad ."
that ls,,er-apd more loo-uithou, being guilty OF con
,em, NJ The House IL official legislative corruption
had been charged ~ the Secretary theh he
was privsred question, and would nave P'eceoehce
over MI other business until every stain was wPed oot
Bu, the resolution stated that the letter oil Inc Secfe
nry merely charged party in the House u heP'e
sen,,,;yes And when did party ever get Inc PRIV
euas If the House, THIS the first line that II ever
wns made n privileged quason--ihat party Yves ar
! ra;roed Mr. W. SAID, he submitted u Tue 9Pea"e,
as the officer of order Of the House, whether coao
By any consruc!ion be considered pr,viiegeo CUES
ton that the Secretary CT war; OF any""uy e'ne' "a
mpnrned party in this country II his colleague
wou5 undertake 10 sav that Inc Secretary oil War had
CHARGED the House with malfeasance IN leg,sato ne
would apree that il was question OF privilege he
asked the Clerk to read the resolution ;, M
rTbe resolution was accordingly read, when MT. y"
His noin,s Of order were these: First, that the bust
ness of Congress, the business OF The country ana te
business of The people, important aud vital, hau Pece
dence over The business of the Wing party hat was
his frs, MONT; and before the Wing party could get in
resopion 10 inquire abunt the SANDERS or truths
contained in the Sectelurys letter, they must have
vote of two.lhds His second point ives, that ms
COLLEAGUE could not torture that parasraph-n which
against Congress-into question OF privilege Hls
COLLEAGUE could not make out Of this question oil pr
vlecc SO as give il priority over Inc business o
the neone He was not forced (A1r. w sald) to ask
the House whether IT would entertain thls p'oPoshioh
or not The SPEAKER himself must decide il, or must
obligc his colleague 10 make mo'oh 10 S"sPe"u Tue
rules
Mr.. POTTS observed that he was rot disposed TO
Interrupt his colleague while he was stating his points
or order; but he would say that thus was The his
IL; he had
had ever known n gentleman TO get up and discuss
decision Of the Chair without taking an appeal! His
colleague commenced with the declaration, that they
were moi such magua;es of the land as to be authorized
10 inquire into Sccadai@m magHasnn, coming from
auy quarter. Now, he did not know how high his
colleague rated his privilege as memoe. OF the House,
but he (alr Bot,s) disposed TO give HIM higher
c,aims-claims which he made for himself and Ter
every member Of the House. lie (Alr. Botts) was
that magnate of the land that claimed the privilege
Of inqulTing into Scandaiam m0gnatam, when made
against the members Of the House His colleague
objected the resolution, because 1t stated That
party only, arraigncd in the Secretary letter. but
had his colleague ascetaned what party constituted
the majority in that House: Was not an accusation
against the Wing party, an accusation against Inc ma
jeri,y Of the Ilouse-that party constituting Inc mao
ri.y: General laughter] His colleague said that
charge Of corruption against single member OF the
House would be question Of privilege; but charge
made Ly distinguished officer of one branch OF The
Government, Of corruption against nsJorty OF ano'
Their branch Of The Govcrnment-there, forsooth, was
sanGGiuin na0Gnaum; but not beng directed against
single individual, not proper subject ct inquiry
e had understood that in the case OF the lnmened Mr.
| Cley-whoSe name he never heard without regret-a
communication having appeared IN The Courier anc
Enourer of New York, charging corruption against
single member his colleague offered resolution raising
select committee TO inquire into the subject
Mr WISE begged leave 10 correct his colleague The
his colleague alluded to had nothing to 10 WITH o
! of Mr. Ci!ley a resolution OF inquiry offered, as
uf hal
Wa made against member Of the Senate, Mr. Hug.
glesl committee of inquiry was raised IN that body,
The subject fully inquired into, and the member homer
ably acquitted
Mr. ROT1S This was case of single paragraph
in one of the newspapers Of The day.
Mr. WISE. No, Sir. II was charge made By
letter writer, who we'll known in The House, and
throughout the country, (Mathew l.. Davs) in which
he alleged that it could he proved that member OF
Congress had taken money brbe from patenee OF
mailbag locks, for service rendered him. 1t was
not a party charge, and had nothing TO do with the
case Of Mr.. Cilley. As soon as he (Mr. saw that
paragrapli-not common newspaper item, but contain
ed Of The letters Of the Spy in Washington, who
was we'll known as responsible individual-he rose
and offered resolution, setting forth that charge had
been made against member of Congress- and proposing
that committee sbond be rused TO inquire into 1t
He would further say order 10 put his colleague IN
possession of all the facts, that TIE individual himself
ialathew L. Davis told him (Mr. W. that he could
prove the charge lie had made.
Mr.. Bolts understood, them that ii was not
newspaper paragraph but letter written by respect
able and responsible individual, and was therefore
entitled respectful consideration; hul, in this case,
the letter written by the Secretary of War,a mem.
Der Of Mr. Ty!ers cabinet, and therefore was not emit
tied 10 respect
! Mr.. WISE vas ST. that his colleague would not,
in candor, say that such his understanding OF his
remarks.
SIR ROTTS would no, say that his colleague meant,
to convey such an impressions but he must, candor'
say that such was fair deduction from what he said.
Mr.. WISE asked his colleague, in courtesy tn allow
him 10 explain himself 10 be understood. Hs
colleague had stated that his (Alr VS. proceeding
was founded on ewspaper paragraph This he deneo,
and explained that it was founded on an accusation
made by known Ind responsible individual against
member Of Congress. From nothing that he had said,
could fair deduction be made tha; the Secretary oil
War not respectable and responsible character.
The distinction 9h,c his colleague snd eveEybod else
must have understood him draw between the letter
o the Secretary Of War and the accusation OF Matthew
L. Davis was this The Secretary in his letter did not
accuse any body of crime, hut was mere political
accusation Of corruption against oil the parties oil
tao day; while tie charge of Mr.. Davis was of crime
against particular individual. MIR. w said he had
himself made accusations Of corruption against party,
and had heard the accusations made against the
party with which he acted; but he never dreamed of
such accusations being made the subject oil inquiry IN
The House.
alr Bolts again rose and remarked, that, one
good turn deserved another, he would appeal TO the
courtesy oil his colleague not TO interrupt him.
Mr. WISE shall not interrupt my colleague, I'M
less he egregIously misrepresents or nisqnoes me-
Mr.. BOTIS. | hope my colleague does not intend
10 charge with design to misrepresent him.
Mr. WISE observed, that he could not enter into
what the designs of his colleague; but he could
say that his colleague could not more efec,uay mis-
represent him than BY proceeding as he had.
Mr.. Bolts resumed his colleague had conended
that, in the former instance when he Mr.. WiseJ
moved The resolution of inquiry, the charge against
member Of Congress preferred ny responsible in
divdua, Mathew L. Davis,l known az the Spy IN
Washington. Now, if charge adduced by such man
"a respectable letter writer-wns competent to cause
RI Congress order committee of investigations the
was much stronger, and the reason for committee of
investigation greater, when grave charge was made
by the Secretary of War. Fiji true that the
Wing party willing 10 postpone the consideration
Of great national questions, only 10 certain