The miners' express. (Dubuque, Iowa) 1849-1854, 1854-09-06

the practice, in such cases, was in the Senate
told him that al thu request 1T the committee
who reported the bill, veiba alterations no, at
frc,iny the sense of the bill were made. Col.
onei Furney then, in an undertone, repeated
over the words "constitu,ec or "sganized,
/" constituted and organized, and said, why
realty do not that it affects tne srnse of the
bill a, al and rs il was the intention OF the
committee that il should BE- "and, aud "a The
object "f the change seems to be solely To pro
vent DELAY, | think the Correction might as wen
he made, re,urnt d To the engrossing rom,
and Mr.. Sprnulr came in spnn after with the
hill in his hand, and snan afterwards gave me
the bill. and on looking into i, | saw the cor
r,c.iop had been made | wen. back to the
San,,. chamb.r aud informed General Jones
that In. correction had been made, 10 which he
repli.d uy..-y well lie did not seem To
maniics, any te-iin. upon the subj ct do
not think | had any other interviews wrh
General Jones IN thu subject than those men'
.ion.d had no conversation with any other
person on the subj ct than those have men
toned | NAV have been in Nr. Spr"ule 9
room s.veral times that day, but do not re
member having went over to see MIR. Spronle on
this subject morr than once. Grnerai jones,
think, pointed out the errcr in printed bull
have mad. verbal corrections in EN- rrossrd bills
when requested by the committee who rep ''t"d
them | have also made them in engrassed
bills by direction of The engros>ing committee.
and have made similar corrections, bv dlrec'
tim OF the enrolling committee, in enrolled bills;
but never b. The direction or request OF others,
without the sanction OF a committee, in the cas-
es have mentioned. The engrossing clerks
of the two houses have necessarily frequent
intercourse with each other to keep themselves
informed of the progress of biils-to ascertain
what bills have been iavorably reported IN, tho >e
that have been reported against. and those that
have been reported with amendments, Nc TO
enable them to know what bills to enrol, and in
what form, in advance of their passage; for il
would he physically impossible 10 enrol them
for ultimate action In time, ii deferred until heir
final passage Ii we discover material error,
after bill has gone from one house To another
which, if not corrected, would defeat the object
of the bill Containing it-such az he msspslling
of the name of claimant, which, from the il.
Iegible manner in which names are often written
sometimes occurs-we opprise each other OF il,
so that M a>ures may be taken to correct II, un.
der the sanction OF the appropriate committes,
before the bill goes TO the President.
Robert Smith, s,corn.
Question. DO you know anything Of the
alteration made in House DILL No 342 subse-
quent to its passage.
Answer. | know nothing in reference to it.
Question DO you know anything at infiuen-
ces, pecuniary or otherwise. which were used
TO induce members Of or officers of congress
either to secure the passage CT modification Of
The bill ?
Answer. do not know any improper lnf1u-
ence being brought to bear on members OF
Congress or others, to secure the passage Of
the bill.
Question. Were you present at any inter
view between Mr.. Washburne, of Illinois, and
Mr. Billings, when The proposed bill before
Congress, making grant of land to Minnesota
for railroad purposes, was a subject of CONVEX
sation it so, when, as near as you can recol-
lect..
Answer. l was present at an interview after
the defeat of the first bill, and while efforts
were being made to get up new bill for the
same object.
Question. What was the tenor OF that con-
versation
Answer MIR. Washburne stated that if the
construction of the Tete de Mort railroad could
be secured, he had no objection to the grant OF
land going to the Minnesota and Northwestern
Railroad Company or that the bill might be
put in any shape tn meet the views of the
friends of the grant. That Mr.. Washburne
suggested, at the same interview, the name OF
Alva Hunt, OF New York, as a gentleman
conversant with railroads, and interested with
one Of the Illinois ralre and that any ar
rangement made with him 10 secu the construc.
ton of The rete de Mort road would be salts
factory to him, and would insure his hearty
support OF the measure.
Question. How did you understand the
Minnesota and Northwestern Railroad Com.
pany wished the bill passed
Answer They wished it TO pass to give them
the lands
Washburne wished the bill passed, in case no
arrangement should be made between Billings
and Hunt
Answer. That it should be subject Of future
legislation, and open to competition to all who
might desire to secure the grant.
Question. Do you know of any negotiations
or propositions for securing, between these
parties or any other, the building Of the Tete
de Mort road.
Answer. None other than stated in the pre-
ceding answer
Question Did you hive any conversation
with Mr. Washburae.aIter this interview upon
this sul5ect'
Answer I talked with MIR. Washburne ire
quently afterwards in reference To securing
the grant but nothing occurred between us To
change the condition of things stated above.
Question. What was the time Of those
converse ions
Answer From the time Of the defeat of the
old bill, down to the 9Th May.
In submitting the testimony in this case, we
have aimed to publish all which relates to Gen
Jones and Mr.. Washburne, emitting the testi
mony Of Messrs Washburne and Hunt, because
it is nos important, any further ttan it relates to
the money consideration Of MIR. Washburne
spoken of in the testimony of MIR. Billings and
Mr. Lowber Both Waahburne and Hunt deny
that any conversation occurred between them
and Messrs. Billings and Lowber, touching the
money consideration of foe thousand dollars
spoken Of, to be used for electioneering purpo-
SEES. This, then, is a question of veracity be-
tween Messrs. Billings and Lowber, OIL the one
hand, and Messrs. Washburne and Hunt, on
the other. 1t is a delicate business to express
an opinion upon the veracity Of respectable
men, under oath, when. as in this case, they
swear directly opposite to each other, yet it is
irresistible that one party has sworn falsely
that one must be credited and the other discre-
ditei. Unless a case is very nicely balanced,
we can generally form correct opinion from
the style Of evidence. and the manner of giving
it, as to which side our Judgment should lean
In this case, we lean to the side Of Mr.. Bill
lines and Mr. Lawber, not because their inter-
est is seriously affected by the defeat Of the
grant, as is ours, but because their testimony is
straight forward and consistent; because the
opposite srty had motive to defeat the grant,
unless the bill could be so framed that the
grant might inure to their benefit; because the
course of Mr. Washburne, as Representative,
was inconsistent and unsettled at one tim.
bearing against the Bill, and at another, in i,s
fayor-and seeming to depend upon contingen
cies. outside of bis legitimate duties and res
possibilities as a Representative and because
Mr.. Hunt refused to produce before the Com
mit,ee, when requested TO do so, letter in h''
possession from Mr.. Washburne, which un
questinnably duplicates him as having sought
bribe for his vote and influence in favor OF tins
hill. If Mr.. Washburne is innocent as ht
G. L. II,