The true Democrat., 1857-03-10
Investigating COmmitteess Renort.

Washington, Feb 19.-The report sets forth
 the evidence Tn the Gilbert case, saying that the
 House can judge for themselves of the inst. ness of the conclusions of the committee
 Mr. Watson interposed, saying he under. stood the duty of the committee was merely to report the evidence, and that Gilbert had no opportunity to confront his accusers.
 MT. Orr replied that the gentleman was not correctly informed-that every facility was of- fered.
 Dr. Davis resumed reading the report show Ing that Sweeney and Triplett were witnesses against Gilbert, both having been examined separately and given their testimony reluctant. ". Allusion is made to summoning witnesses to dlscredit the testimony of Sweeney, and by letter to sustain his character. The committee gave their evidence in favor of the truthfulness of Sweeney's statement made under oath, and offer the following resolutions:
 That w. A. Gilbert, member of this House from New York, did agree with F. F. c. Trip lett to procure the passage of resolution or Dill through the present Congress for the Dur. chase by Congress of certain copies of the book of sad Tnplett, on pension and bounty land laws, Ill consideration that the said Triplett should allow him to reserve a certain sum of money out of the appropriation for that pur. pose. That Gilbert did cast his vote on the land oii' depending heretofore before this Congress, TOT corrupt consideration, COTS isting of seven square miles or land and some stock given or to be given to him.
 Y, That Gilbert be forthwith expelled from this House.
 The report is signed by Davis, of Maryland. Orr, Warren, Ritchie and Kelsey, the chairman dissenting
 MT. Grow stated that Gilbert was not noti- he'd of the charges brought against him.
 MT. Orr replied that a complete CODY of the testimony was furnished the accused, and an opportunity given to him for defense
 MT. Grow said that the reputation of the member should not thus be stabbed, who should be permitted to give his testimony in his own way. He charged the committee with violation of the constitutional privileges of members in their star chamber, by their proceedings in sum- moning witnesses from the streets to blacken his character. He denied that Sweeney was entitled to credit anywhere, and while the committee are ready to stab the reputation of ths member, they stood as wall of fire around the character of Sweeney. who could sit there during the examination, while Gilbert was de- nled that right It was proceeding unheard of in the country, and God grant that it may be the last. If men are to be assailed let it be in daylight.
 The committee had taken the testimony of this witness, who, his neighbor declared. could not be believed under oath. As to the other witness, Trplett, he was discharged from office for inalfeasance. This was the kind of test- mony adduced. In the case of the Iowa land bill, Sweeney is witness. Was there mem- Der who believed that Gilbert told him that he was to receive seven square miles and some stock for his vote for that measure? If he was correctly informed Chase did not corrobo- rate.
 Mir. Davis replied the committee had not proposed to put any man on trial; they had done what the House ordered them to do a task of which they would most cheerfully re- lleve themselves. They had examined as to whether there were corrupt combinations among members, to which they were directed by an almost unanimous vote. They had taken tes- timony and reported it to the House, and be- cause that testimony duplicates a member it connot in the judgment of Mir. Grow be report ed. Were the committee to stop with mere report of the evidence? The resolution re- quired report of what action in their opinion was proper to be taken. He should treat Crows suggestion with utter contempt--were the com mittee sent on child's errand to hunt up con- spiracies and then conceal them? the House had sent him on any such errand they had mis- taken the instrument He was resolved to do what was right
 Mir. Bennett, of New York, did not design attacking any member of the committee, but questioned their jurisdiction. The report was nothing but an injurious argument against the accused, coupled with the resolution of expul- sion. Was it ever before heard of, that under the resolution for their appointment they could act as grand and petit jury, and as court to condemn him? If the committee were angels from heaven, instead of members of Congress, he should object to their jurisdiction We have tried nobody they say; no, but they have con- demned a man without trial The committee should have made general report only. What if Simonton published lie in the New York Times; were we to take it up as true, and pass law to milk corruption of corrupt witnesses? Sweeney was poor miserable specimen of de- graded humanity. He understood the report of evidence was already in the hands of two or three New York papers, and it would have the effect to excite prejudice against the accused There must be victim, and hence the cry of " mad" is raised. There is an absence of man. Illness in such course of proceeding, and ex- treme injustice may be done. The accused should have fair hearing, and he protested against the course of the committee.
 After long dehate the various reports, re- commenting, in addition to Gilbert's ex pulsion, that of Edwards, Welch and Mattison, were ordered to be printed, and further consideration of the subject was postponed until Wednesday next.
 The reports are signed by all the members of the committee excepting Kelsey. Ad- journed.