The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1847-03-20

state any names, unless it is further in.
sisted on: but | know it to be fact"
Mr. Moseley replied by stating that he wa.
about to offer resolution for select committeetc
enquire into the charge. "If corruption existed,
said he, "as had been here openly charged, let il
be exposed"
MIR. Morris said GO that he had made inquiries and
found the charge, as he had stated it, to be true
far as an individual was concerned"
Mr.. Moseley moved the adoption of the follow
ing resolution, after it was slightly modified at the
request of Mr.. Morris:
ResolUed, That a committee Of five
members be appointed to investigate
the charges made by the Hon. JOSEPH
MoRRls, of Ohio, against member OF
the Committee on Public Lands, rela-
tive to personal interest, charged a.
gainst that member in the subject mat
ter of Senate bill No. 10; and that the
said committee have power to send for
persons and papers.
Mr.. Morris having been requested to name the
individual who was concerned in the sale of those
stocks, was about to do 50, when the House ad-
journed. y
On Tuesday, Feb. 90, the Speaker announced
the unfinished business to be the consideration Of
the resolution offered the day before by Mr.. Nose
ly. That gentleman, finding that member of the
committee did own stock in mining company,
and that Mr.. Morris would be sustained in his
charge, desired to modify his resolution by adding
the words interested action;" thereby changing
the features of the resolution alledgng as reason
that Mr. Morris " had strongly infimdted that they
were coruptiy influenced by personal interest in
advocating the bill" r.....
Our readers will perceive that in this whole
transaction, the committee wish to change the
issue entirely, by accusing Mr.. Morris of using
expressions which can be no where found in the
reports.
In order that it may be seen that {" a member OF
the committee was personally interested in those
Stocks" we quote'irom the remarks of Mr.. Hunt,
of Michigan, member Of that committee:
"The gentleman from Ohio was strong.
ly opposed to the pre-emption clause
in the mineral bill, on the ground that
the rich spectators in Boston and other
places had secured the mineral lands,
and would defraud the public. and the
Government. | replied that, so far
from the spectators being the only
persons interested, companies had been
formed in almost erery village and town
in my State; that, in my immediate
neighborhood, there were two of these
companies, and the stock was owned
by the farmers, mechanics, and busi-
ness men Of the State, each one hav-
ing few shares; that Ihad nine shares
in one Of them, and that there was
some seventy or eighty members OF
that company"
This proves that Mr.. Hunt was not only inter-
ested himself, but that he was there representing
some 70 or 80 persons belonging to the same com
pany.
Mr.. MoRRIs then said, that if this
resolution passed, he hoped it would
be SO shaped that there should be no
misunderstanding in the matter. 1t
was unfair for gentlemen to make their
own report of a speech of his. and then
arraign him for what he did not say.
He said he had made no charge of
either fraud or corruption. He did be-
lieue that a set of spectators had de-
termined to get hold of these lands;
that their influence had reached the
House and had reached the committee.
If the resolution was put in that shape,
he had no objections to it.
Mr.. McCLELLAND. Does the gentle
man, then, now withdraw all imputa-
tion of improper motives or influence
to any member of the committee?
Mr.. Morris dlsclaimed having made any charge
of improper motives or influence; and certainly in
the last remarks ofMr NJ, above quoted, the word
" improper does not occur. Yet Mr. McCler-
nand attempts to make that the issue, and reiter-
ates it in the following remarks, also desiring
another modification of the resolutions
Mn. McCLERNAND said he had risen
TO advert TO one or two things which
fell from the gentleman from Michigan.
[ Mr.. Hunt. The gentleman seemed
to understand Mr.. MoRRIs as having
said that an improper influence, from
certain spectators, had reached the
com miltee. And this morning the
gentleman from OHIO had reiterated
that such was his meaning. Under
these circumstances, he insisted that
the resolution ought to be modified SO
as to state that to be, The charge; that
it was made against the committee as
we'll as against an individual member.
He would therefore move that the res
olution be so modified. AS it stood,
the charge related TO an individual
member Of the committee only: the