Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1857-03-05
v.n,,t. :, n. s.I.c, comm,t,.s an corrnn,,0r

Inc QNCuiltiks uiltI NE llltt OF the HIST Oh
our head lines, are before US in extenso in the
columns Of the WashiI gton Union of Satur-
day last. The general report was made by
Mr.. Kelsey, and relates TO the mode of exam
lining witnesses, and the difficulties encountered
in arriving at definite information, and has
hard ilcks at newspaper men for the
positive manner in which they state that
of which they have not personal knowledge.
As to the course taken by the Committe with
to Congressman implicated, we are in
formed.
lin conducting the proceedings the Committee
a rule that, where testimony was taken
tending to implicate ATTY member of the House,
a copy of such testimony should be furnished
to such member, and an opportunity given him
to explain or contradict il by other evidence I;
OF. If the member desired to do so, by his own
statement under oath or not under oath, as he
might think proper.
THE CASE OF J. ". SIM NTON,
The correspondent Of the New York Times,
is given considerable space. The nature Of
the testimony that he gave, during his first sx
animation, is welaunderstood by the public.
He testified that members of Congress had
approached him, and told him that there was
money to be made by the advocacy of certain
measures, that they wanted to make it, and to
have him assist them in the saatter. Because
be would not give up the names be was i'm
prisoned, but was taken out and examined a
second time. What this second examination
resulted in has been a mystery, which will be
cleared up by this extract from the report.
On the 9TH of February this witness (Simon-
was recalled, and the following question
was propounded to him in writing:
By the Chairman. Have YOU been So
licited BY any member Of the present Congress
directly, or indirectly, to make any arrange
ment by which the member was to receive any
valuable consideration for his support of any
measure during the present Congress?"
The witness after writing dow his answer,
as follows 81 cannot say, under
oath, that | have, and never have intended to
be understood so to mean"
This answer, being directly contradictory Of
the previous testimony of this witness, satisfied
the committee that they ought not to press his
examination any further.
It also appears from the testimony of this
witness that, while occupying a seat as report
er on the floor of the House, he personally
aided in the passage of the Wisconsin land
bill, under a promise of receiving a certain
compensation if the bill passed but be "has
no legal claim for such service, and has not re-
ceived the fruit of any such interest,"" He al
so aided an old friend of his in passing a pri-
vate bill through the Senate, for which service
he received a small compensation.
In view Of all these facts, the committee
deem it their duty to report a resolution for his
expulsion from the House as a reporter.
CASE OF WN. A. GILBERT, MEMBER OF CONGRESS
FROM NEW YORK.
H. Winter Davis reports that James G.
Sweeny, a witness in the case of Gilbert,
states:
That be knew Of a case of an attempt Of a
member Of Congress to obtain compensation
for his vote that the contract was entered in
to in witnesses presence, between the author Of
the book, F. F.. c. Triplett, and the member of
Congress, William A. Gilbert that he could
not give the language used, nor was be sure be
could give the substance of their talk but the
result was given in a writing which he produced
which was an order on the Clerk of the
House, drawn by Triplett, in favor Of Sweeny,
for Sl4,5 500, and dated August, 1856. As near
" as he could recollect, Mr.. 1Tiplett proposed,
if the book was taken by Congress at ST. 35
per copy, be would give $500; if at 81 40,
then $500 more, and so on at the same rate up to
81 80 per copy the scale might have begun at
81 40 and $500 but his impression was that
it begun at SI35.
Triplett testified thathe was in trouble about
his book, and Gilbert sent for him. Mr.. Gil
bert asked the witness for what amount be
could afford to publish his book. He made a
calculation, and stated the amount which would
satisfy him for the publication of it.
The witness thinks Mr.. Gilbert said be
thought the thing could be got through, and got
through for a better price than the witness had
named. What that price was The witness could
not state with certainty. He bad been told,
however, that his competitor va making liberal
propositions tn members of Congress; and the
witness told Mr.. Gilbert that he was willing to
take a certain sum for his book-pslhaps 81 40
per copy-and that if it were put in at u higher
price, the witness did not care what became Of
the balance of II; and prior to the last SEES
sion be gave TO S.seeny ar order for a certain
amount Of money. On the superstition that if
the resolution should pass, this money should
be paid out Of that appropriation.
In Mr.. 6ilbert's attempt 10 defend himself,
he has COZ fined himself to an attempt to i'm
peach the character of Swesny. in which, ac-
cording to be opinion of tn committee, he has
been successful. SWeeny had testified that
Gilbert had told him that be had received seven
square miles of land for his vote on the Iowa
land bill.
W. ". WEIGH, A MEMBER RON THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT.
Two witnesses have testified to two distinct
acts of Wa. W. Welch OF a corrupt character
the one an attempt to procure the passage OF
a resolution for reward, the other an attempt
to procure a bride for reporting favorably on a
IldllAu u lrAlliAE Utlult tue OOmultLlee on H.
valid Pensions, of which be was a member.
FRANCIS 5 EDWARDS A MEMBER FROM n. Y.
Mr.. Richie reported in this case The wit
ness was Robert T. Paine. a member of the
House from North Carolina. Mr.. Paine testi-
fed
First, That on Tuesday, the 23d day of De-
cember last, during the session of the House,
Mr.. Edwards, after inviting him to take a seat
in the place of Mr.. Clingham, which was made
vacant beside Mr.. Edwards, inquired bow Mr.
Paine was disposed towards the bills making
grants of lands for railroad purposes, and was
informed that Mr.. Paine was altogether op-
posed to them that be believed them wrong in
principle and unjust, and that whenever he had
voted on the passage Of such bills he had
voted against them.
Secondly, That Mr.. Edwards having thus
ascertained the views Of Mr.. Paine as to the
policy and justice of making grants of pubic
lands to aid in the construction of railroads,
then said that he (Mr. Edwards) and Gas Mr..
Paine thinks be also said his brother owned
or was interested in lands which would be
greatly enhanced in value by the passage of
the Minnesota bill, if the railroad should be
run through them; and that to this declaration
of Mr.. Edwards peculiar interest in this par
ticulsr bill Mr.. Paine made no answer.
Third, That Mr.. Edwards then asked if be
might say something to Mr.. Paine in conf
dence, and was informed that be might do so
Fourth, That having been informed that he
might talk confdentially, he said that he (Mr.
Edwards) was authorized to say that fifteen
hundred dollars would be guaranteed for the
support of the bill, if it would be any induce
meHt. WhereUpon Mr.. Paine replied Instant
ly, that fifteen million would be no inducement
for his vote, and expressing his indignation, he
left the seat.
MIR. Edwards states that he spoke upon the
authority of rumor only, and never pretended
to say that he was authorized to say that GER
tain sums of money would be paid, &C., sc.
ORESNUs B. MATTEsoN, OF NEW YORK.
The testimony against this individual is thus
abridged in the report:
James S. Pike testifes hat about the time
of the passage Of the Wisconsin land bill, at
the last session Of Congress, the member from
New York said to him, Sin a i~aunting manner, y
that "you and. Harvey, 1.-THE witness and Harvey
being correspondents Of the New York Tri-
6ane, and a few Of you clever fellows, must
have a section OF land.n Witness smiled at
fba aupgasfion and made mn repIv UWaU -