The weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1852-1858, 1857-03-14
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA TERRITORY SATURDAY, MARCH ID 1877

/ mon Mr.. Triplett and Mr.. Sweeney to appea
:, before the bar of the House to be examine
If as witnesses.
e Mr.. Warner said as member of the Com
G mittee he had endeavored to d;scb.ro. ~.
. . unwe'come and Iaborious duty with fidelity
: proceedings. '".'
s MIR. Cavallero argued that Mr.. Gilbert b,
I his own statement, had admitted Tho tr,,,i
m the charge against him. M
Mr' oiinert requested Mr.. G. to read farth
CT oh III the report, which he did; rea,iu.
, '"c Mo,ds, no agreement was made witt
: : n, me l"lloert) by Sweeney Triplett, or any
C.ner person; nor was to have any benefit
rom the passage of the book resolution.
Mr' y. then insisted that Mr. Gilbert.
conduct was in its nature correct
Mr.. keltt alluded to the conrse totor :,
the case Of Mr.. Brooks. and r.1arr.i, - ar.
Journals to establish the fact that these u,l,o
were now so vocifcrous in branding the So.
leet Committee as {" Star Chamber Ino,;s;
tion," and demanded that witncs s.s ha +, a n
at the bar of the House, were imnatient for
summary proceedings on Mr.. Brools NJ
Eamundson and himself; the difference is
,nat the former case was one of assault and
oattery wh'ie this is one of plumber Laugh
'er'l In conclusion, he said the House had
no r'snt 10 graduate their rules of evidence
made. ~''0'
Mr.. Colfax sad he was but slightly ac-
quainted with MIR. Gilbert, and did not rise
as MS advocate, but to point out why-al-
though ne would certainly vote to expel any
members for bribery-he could not vote for
MS expulsion on the evidence submitted,
even II it had not been impeached. lie then
Ponted out gross contradictions between Mr..
Triplett and Mr.. Sweeney.
Mr.. Letcher said they were all laborins
uhder misapprelension OF analogy. Those
proceedings were not to be lkened to those
I" a urand Jury, or to an examination on
criminal trial. The point is, whether the
house had core to conclusion, from the
evidence, that they will no longer recognize
inc accused as members and fit associates.
MIR. Gilbert's defence was then read. He
assumes that the committee went beyond
the power. conferred by the resolution under
which they were appointed. He SAYS the
oiiy true witnesses against him are Mr..
Sweeney and Mr.. Triplett, who stand by
their own confession in the position of ack-
n"wiedged accomplices in each others guilt
and that they seek to connect him with
themselves and their offence, thereby to es-
cape the consequence of their own admitted
accountability. The shallow effort Of the
committee to strengthen their staten, mt by
the corroboration of each other, would ex-
CITE smile if it were not done for the grave
purpose OF affixirg guilty stain upon fel-
low member. Five witnesses of high per-
soEal character ard great intelligence, swear
that Sweeney's character is bad for truth
and veracity, and that they would not be-
lieve him under oath, and the committee
themselves are constrained to confess he is
vindictive when provoked, and not over scru
pulous in his means of revenge.
|. MIR. Triplctt had no more than Mr.. Swee
ney's word that any member of Congress
was interested in the DO resolution.
MIR. Gilbert then repeats, he never stipu-
lated for any quantity of land or other pe-
cuniary consideration for his note, or for that
of any other member. lie submits his case
to the House, deman ling an open trial by
the House, where justice will be admins
tered according to legal evidence and in le-
gal form, and where his rights as man and
his privilege as a member will be respected.
and with an apology for the length of his
remarks, he cheerfuly abides the Judgment
Of the House.
The House, by vote of 73 to l2O, disa-
greed to the resolution of Bennett, of New
York, that tie report be recommtted, with |
instructions to print the omitted parts ofthe |
testimony and all the particulars relative to
the suggestions and responses from Mr.. |
Sweeney and Mr.. Smonton.
MIR. Walker wanted to know, if the accas- |
ed were accorded a trial, how matters were
to be managed, and by what rules the pro.
ccedngs were to be governed.
MIR. Bennett, of N. Y. said Mr.. Gilbert |
wished to be heard by counsel Lut was not |
now ready.
Much conversation then ensued as to the
mode OF proceedings, during which Mr..
Houston said it took infinitely more time to
settle the preliminary than the pending
question.
Mr.. Davis, of Maryland, in closing the de-
bate said the question was whether the
House should now proceed on the evidence
taken by the committee, and on that evil
dence acquit or condemn Mr.. Gilbert.
Mr.. Edwards said that Mr.. Simonton's
testimony against him is printed in the re-
p rt and while his against Simontcn is omit
ted. Mr.. Simonton's testimony is false.
Mr.. Davis proceeded to justify the pro-
cecdings of the committee, saying the ac-
cused were afforded opportunity for de-
fence.
Mr.. Bennett said that Mr.. Gilbert d .serv-
e to be heard tomorrow morning, and
moved an adjournment.
Mr.. Dunn said that Mr.. Gilbert ought to
be in, under the circumstances.
Adjourned. -
WASHINGTON, Feb. &c.
The proceedings in the Senate on this day
were not important. The. Tariff Bill was
under discussion. .tt4
HoUsE.-On motion Of Mr.. Campbell of
Ohio, the Committee of the Whole on the
State of the Union was discharged from con-
sideration of five general appropriation bills
in order that they be put on passage.
During the proceedings in the House to-
day, Mr.. Wright of Tenn, approached the
seat of Mr. Harris of Md, for the purpose it
is said of speaking to that gentleman.-
While there, Mr.. Sherman, who was of the
opinion that Mr. Wright acted in menacing
manner towards him. and between whom
End himself sharp personal controversy
recently occurred in the House yesterday,
Mr. fisherman Indignantly threw handful Of
waters in Wright's face. The latter made
an attempt to strike him when Sherman put
his hand on his side pocket to pull out, it is
WeaDOn: mutual friepds ;,n,rod;