New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-07-06
NETWORK TRIBUNE.
BY IsltsHApH TO THE Nsw.YORk TRIBUNE,
xxxIn CoNGREss-Fsr., Session.

The OMNIBUS OIL was thken up aOOus -
when Mr. BELL resumed his remarks, containing
his defense and vindcsiion Of the course OF the Elk
ecutive, and in review Of structures made 'nereoh
by other Senators. In the course OF his remarks
be was understood 10 intimate that he wouiu No'o
for the BILL but argued to show that 1t was no' as
commendable measure as had been claimed, ana
defined his views 10 show that he understood us
yalue and took il only for what it was worth. he
compared the Presidents plan with that oil the
Committee. ureing the great advantages OF the
former. and ex pressing his conviction OF SUPER
ortv Without concluding, Mr.. Bell gave way ior
motion of adjournment; and the Senate aoJ'
HOUSE or REPRESENTATIVES,
Mr.. GIpDISos rose to question OF pnyilegeand
produced the Boston Atlas, in which was an article
or letter from w ashington, dated June 27th charg
ing that he (Giddings) had examined certain Ipa-
pers on file in the Post Office Department and had
distracted several in relation 10 the appointment OF
removal Of the Postmaster Of Oberlin
Mr. JONES denied that this could be question oi
privilege; twas entirely bstween the newspaper
editor or the author Of the article, and the gen'e
man charged with impropercondact
The SPEAKER referred 10 two charges maue
against members in the T~enty-nlnth ana lni,H
eth Coneress and in these instances IT was eiI lot
The House TO determine whether they were CUES
tious of privilege, and the same course sDou'o 10
pursued on the present occasion
Mr. TooMBs appealed from the decision OF INC
Chair. and said that the Speaker should make
decision, and it was for the House to overruie or
sustain it. .o.,,l,
action in the case Of the letterwrter against MI
Sawyer lof sausage memory
Al nraultA0
defined in the Constitutions none OF these naa oeeh
violated by the writer Of the me- spaper arhcie-
AS for newspapers, they utter threats and iaIse,
hood, and charge crimes against every memoeroi
the House, and the gentleman from Ohio would De
fortunate II he escaped. ,--,
Mr. STEVENS Of Penn. inquired on what ground
of privilege the House took acton win reference
10 the Secretary of War on the GalPhin claim.
Mr. TooMBs replied, the Secretary asked an In
vestigation. IL was not question Oh privilege
no one contended it was In conclusion, ne con-
tended that this was not question Of privilege az
contem plated by the Constitution.
Mr. BAKER was opposed TO any investigation,
because the article did not bring in question Mr..
Giddingss privilege as member OF Congress: Mr.
Sawyer was accused OF abreach oifslth A VOICE
No, eating sausagesD 1t was against the Dig
pity of the House, involving the conduct Of mem
Der while in the discharge Of his public duties, and
causing delay. A letter writer abused the courtesy
accorded 10 him by the House.
Mr. SwEETsER was understood to desire au In
vestigaton of the subject. His colleague had been
charged with abstracting papers IN his Official ca
pacity as a member of Congress.
Mr.. billiard concurred in the opinion ex-
pressed by Mr.. Toombs. The article was anony-
nous no was responsible for it, and the House
was called on to enter into an Investigation,
simply because the gentleman occupied seat In
the hall He moved the previous question on the
appeal
Mr.. BURT desired to know whether the letter
was written by letter writer, or reporter, having
the privileges OF the hall
The SPEAKER said it was not in order TO make
remarks the subject
The House then took vote and refused to sec.
ond the demand Tor the previous an;ss.on Cor ,h,
Nit. Harris, (of hhnolsl sao, was ,os Inv sn'
OF Of this body. and it was no part oil the Speaker
duty TO decide such questions
Mr. VASDYKE moved to lay the appeal on tn
table.
Mr.. BAKER asked the unanimous consent Of tn
House to make an explanation Objection was IN
terposed
that the House should determine whether this wa
question Of privilege. The appeal from the de
cision of the Chair was then laid on table,
MIR. ALLAN contended that the House had power
to investigate this matter Ii not only reflected or
the member, MIR. Giddings, bat on the House Itself
Mr.. McCLERSASD was in favor OF Investigation
Mir. Giddings had been charged with felony, and
should have an opportunity to vlndlcate himself,
Mr.. MORSE would not undertake to draw dis
tnctions whe.hert the charge well or III founded,
whether the charge was by the editor or a CORE
spendent, or whether it was made against member
in official or private capacity Ii the charge was
made against member OF this House In his official
capacity it was breach Of privilege, and the
House had no right to bring any man to the bar to
answer. IL the author OF the paper had met Mr..
Giddings and cudgeled him for anything not con-
nected with bis duties as a member 1t would be no
breach Of privilege.
Mr.. SwEETsER contended that the House could
do nothing less than to afford Mr. Giddings an op-
portunity to vindicate himself; if guilty he not
ct to represent his constituents and to associate
with gentlemen.
Mr. WOODWARD discussed the ground taken by
Mr. Toombs, that the House had no privileges
cept such as are expressed In the Constitution or
Bylaws.
Mr. RooT said that q member charged with an
offepse, and sometimes no more than a reflection
on his conduct has right to call attention to it,
The Chair is bound to present it to the House, and
il il for the House 10 say what they will do.
Mr.. GIDDISes said, he had submitted this mat
ter to the House. with a view that they might
purge themselves OF this scandal 1t was matter
solely Of duty to the House, whether they will be
contaminated with this wrong charge, and he had
hoped that some friend would move a resolution for
the appointment of a Committee on the subject.
After further proceedings, the question was
taken, a. follows;
Does the subject matter brought before the House n
vove question OF privilege WAS decided in he mega
dive; Yeas II, Nays 49,
Mr.. CIIDDISGs inquired what was the effect Of
the vote The Speaker said that nothing was now
before the House.
Mr.. GIppIsGs asked leave to make a statement
with reference to the subject; there being obec
ton, he made q statement, during which, he said he
had never seen the papers connected with the ap-
pointment or the removal Of the Postmaster at
Oberlin, nor knew single name of them. He
never called on the Assistant Postmaster General
but twice, and in relation to Post Offices in his
own District,-so far as Oberlin was concerned
the charge was entirely unGounded.
Mr. BAKER inquired whether there was reason
20 believe the imputationcame from the Post D lice
Department.
Mr.. GIDDIsGs could not say where it came from
On w ednesdsy last he found on his desk paper
called the Day Book, containing an extract from