The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1857-02-21

the penalties OF contumacy,
they truly and after repeated monitions from the
committee that Ms must re given and these crcum
stances ponedy corroborate their evidence as any APP
pearance of being swift witnesses would nave impair
ed it.
DR. WEIGH replied 10 their respective statements as fol
lows - IL
the pension laws and that Bennett had rival WORK
stolen from Trplet's. Triplett showed him his WORK,
and should for that reason have voted for his oooh n
Dr. WEIGH unquafedly denies that he had any knoW-
edge that any contract understanding existed between
Triplet and any other person. whereby any pecunary
consideration was be paid to himself or any other per
son. the of passage of the resolution he never
50 understood from IPe s Gd Amy ns ;mD|ea sueb
thing There several conversations about the DOCK
and he expressed desire that might pass but be had no
thought OF any corrupt bargain. !
q That he did report the claim of Roxana Kmball to
the House. but he did its merits; and be denies ever
saying to Sweeny any other person. that IL might De
necessary to sum OF money whatever Tor the pro-
curing of such report
Mr. WEIGH summoned Mr. Gilbert and on his examina-
ton he testified follows:
That witness never told Mr. Wech that he, Mr. Welch
should receive any ecuniary compensation in the event OF
the passage of Trpetts book resolution that witness
knew he had any power to bestow any dement, on
that matter and he promised Mr. WEIGH any one
else, any benefit out Of that concern.
That he knew there any such resolution rea-
tive Trpets book he had any resolution OF the
kind and he said anything to Mr. WEIGH by which
Mr. WEIGH to be considered receiving any benefit
The committee rendered to Dr. WEIGH opportunity to
confront the witnesses who had testified against him. but
he declined to examine them.
The committee cannot regard the statement of DR..
Wech testimony to weigh against the testimony OF DIS
interested witnesses suggests no hypothesis consistent
with the facts stated by the witnesses which relieves him
from the effect of their evidence
Mr. Wech declined to confront the witnesses and subject
them to that test of truth which aehood rarely
capea sitting and close examination in the presence OF
person cognzant Of all the facts as they actually occur
redbut test which would be likely to recoil on guilty
party who should attempt use it Mr. WEIGH has chosen
60 the matter rest the examination OF the committee
fbaf aafim NJ Mr.
The committee do not think they can regard the tesmo
ny of Mr. Gilbert entitled to outweigh the testimony OF
dsnterested Witness for Mr.. Gilbert appears before
the committee in the capacity Of an accomplish with Mr.
WEIGH.
The committee therefore, have nothing to do but 10
ask he attention of the House the details of the exam
nation close scrutiny to which the witnesses implca-
ting Mr. WEIGH subjected their reluctance to testify
till forced to elect between perjury contumacy or the
truth, and the simple charater OF their testimony "heh
given.
Luton recommend to the House what action, 10 the
Judgment the committee the House ought to take on its
part the committee submit the following resolutions:
Resolped That VIM w. WEIGH did corfuptly combine
with VIM A Gilbert a member of this House from New
York. the passage of resolution or bill through
this House for the purchase OF certain copies OF the Work
OF f. f. c. Tripett the pension and bouny-land laws
for share the money to be paid to the said VIM A.
,. ResolpI That VIM. w. WEIGH did attempt TO pro-
cure money from James Sweeny for reporting fayoraby
on the claim of Roxana Kimba from the Committee on
invalid Pensions at this Congress
-. w w
House from Connecticut be forthwith expelled from this
HENRY WINTER DAVIS.
JAMES L. ORR
DAVID RITCHIE.
HIRAM WARNER
FRANCIS s. EDWARDS, MEMprs FROM THE STATE OF NEW
Mr.. RlTCHIE, from the select committee, made the fol-
lowing report
The select committee appointed in pursuance OF reso-
pf tn
tain charges referred to In the preamble the said resou
ton and report the evidence taken and what action in
their Judgment is necessary the part of the House. beg
leave respectfully to make the following special report rel
alive to the Hon. Francis s. Edwards, member of this
House from the State of New York:
1t has been alleged before the committee that Mr. Ed
wards attempted procure vote for the passage of bill
pending before the House. by holding out pecuniary
consideration for the support Of the said bill.
The only witness examined in this case whose testimony
is MATERIAL the Hon. Robert Paine, member of this
House from the State of North Carolina He states that
effort made procure his vote for the passage of
bill pending before this House, by holding
sderaton for the support of the bill that the cousidera
fifteen hundred dollars and that the who held
out the consideration is the said Francis S. Edwards
According to the testimony Of Mr. Paine it appears
First That Tuesday, the 23d day Of December last
during the session OF the House. Mr. Edwards, after in
viting him to take seat in the place of Mr. Clingman
which vacant beside Mr.. Edwards, inquired how Mr.
Paine disposed towards the bills making grants Of
lands for railroad purposes, and informed that Mr.
Paine altogether opposed to them that he believed
them wrong in principle and unjust and that whenever he
them.
Second That Mr. Edwards having thus ascerained the
views of Mr. Paine the policy and justice of making
grants of public lands to aid in the construction of rail-
roads, then said that he (Mr Edwards) and las Mr. Paine
thinks he also said his brother owned interested
in lands which would be greatly enhanced in value by
passage of the Minnesota bill il the railroad should be
through them and that to this declaration of Mr. Ed
wardss peculiar interest in this particular bill Mr. Paine
made
Third That Mr.. Edwards then asked if he might say
something TO Mr. Paine in confidence and was informed
that he might do 80.
Fourth. That having been informed that he might talk
con6dentiay he said that he Mr. Edwards was author
lied to that fifteen hundred dollars would be guarau-
tied for the support of the b If it would be any induce
ment Whereupon Mr.. Paine replied, instantly, that ff-
teen million dollars would be nducement for his vote
and expressing his indignation he left the See
timony of MI. Paine, at page l07 Of general reporL)
This testimony shows attempt the part of Mr. Ed
wards to induce Mr. Paine to vote in which Mr.
Paine thought wrong in principle and unjust by the hope
oil receiving fifteen hundred dollars for so doing
He ascertans what Mr.. Paine's real sentiments are
finds them adverse to the policy of making grants of pub
lie lands to aid in the construction OF railroads and then
explains to Mr. Paine his peculiar interest in the Minnesota
bill This explanation intended to give weight and
crediby in the mind of Mr. Paine to the offer subse
quently made in confidence because it showed why Mr.
Edwards might be authorized by others to make the offer
why he might be induced make such an offer him
self
Eeceivng to what he said of his peculiar in
tin the Minnesota BILL Mr. Edwards goes step fur
in c8na asks IL he might say something Mr.. Paine
Edwardynce Mr.. Paine replies yes and thereupon Mr..
qury necepcsing further reserve preliminary in