Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1857-02-26
Investigating Committees Report.

Mr.. Watson interpcsed, saying he un-
dersiood the duty Of the Committee was
merely TO report the evidence, and that Gil
bert had had no opportunity 10 confront hi.
accusers.
Mr.. Orr replied that the gentleman was
not correctly informed every facility
was offered.
DR.. DAVIS resumed reading the report,
showing that Sweeney and Triplett were
witnesses against Gilbert, both having been
examined separately and given their testi-
mony reluctantly. Allusion is made TO sum-
moning witnesses 10 discredit the testimony
Of Sweeney, and by letter to sustain his
character. The committee gave their evil
dence in favor Of the truthfulness Of Sween-
ey's statement made under oath, and offer
the following resolution:
That w. A. Gilbert, member Of this
House from New York, did agree with F.
+. c. Triplett to procure the passage of
resolution or bill through the present Con-
gress for the purchase by Congress Of GER
tain copies OF the book Of said Triplett, on
pension and bounty land laws, in considera-
iton that the said rriplett should allow him
20 reserve certain sum Of money out Of
the appropriation for that purpose.
That Gilbert did cast his vote OH the
Land Bill, depending heretofore before this
Congress, for corrupt consideration con-
sisting Of seven square miles Of land and
some stock given or 10 be given 10 him.
That Gilbert be forthwith expelled from
this House.
The report is signed by Davis Of Mary
land, Orr, Warren Richie and Kelsey, the
Chairman dissenting.
Mr.. Grow stated that Gilbert was not
notified Of the charges brought against him.
Mr.. Orr replied that a complete copy Of
the testimony was furnished the accused,
and an opportunity given 10 him for defence.
Mr.. 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 commit
zee with violation of the constitutional priv
iieges Of members in their star chamber, by
their proceedings in summoning witnesses
from The streets 10 blacken his character.
lie denied that Sweeney was entitled 10
credit anywhere, and while the committee
are ready 10 stab the reputation Of this mem
Der, they stood as q wall Of fire around the
character Of Sweeney, who could sit there
during the examination, while Gilbert was
denied that right. 1t was a proceeding I'M
heard Of in the country, and God grant thai
it may be the last. II men are 10 be assuil
ed. lei it be in daylight
TIE committee had taken the testimony
Of this witness, who, his neighbor declared,
could no, be believed under oath. AS 10
the othe, witness, Triplett, he was dis
chargea-from office for malieasance. This
was.tke kind of testimony adduced. In The
case Of the Iowa Land Bill, Sweeney is II
witness. Was there member who be-
lieved that Gilbert told him that he was TO
receive seven quare miles and some stock
for his vote for that measure? II he was
correctly Informed Chase did not corrobor-
, ate.
Mr.. Davis replied the Committee had
not proposed 10 put any man on trial they
had done what the House ordered them to
do, task Of which they would most cheer
fully relieve themselves. They had exam
ined as 10 whether there were corrupt COM
binatcns among members, 10 which they
were directed by an almost unanimous vote.
They had taken testimony and reported il to
the House, and because that testimony i'm
/. plicates member 1t cannot in the judgment
Of Mr.. Grow be reported. Were the Com
mitiee to stop with mere report of the evil
dence? The resolution required report Of
what action in their opinion was proper 10
be taken. He should treat Crows sugges-
ton with utter contempt-were the Com
mittee sent on n childs errand TO hunt up
conspiracies and then conceal them? II the
House had Sent him on any such errand
they had mistaken the instrum ,nt. He was
resolved tosd3 what was right.
NJ papnatf nf Na,u Vork did not de-
sign attacking any member Of the commit
tee, but questioned their jurisdiction. The
report was nothing but an injurious argyll
ment against the accused, coupled with the
resolution of expulsion. Was il ever be-
fore heard Of, that under the resolution for
their appointment they could act as grand
md petit jury, and as court to condemn him?
If the committee were angels from heaven,
in stead OF members of Congress, he should
object 70 their Jurisdiction. We have tried
nobody, they say; no, bnt they have con-
demned n man without trial. The commit
tee should have made general report only.
What II Sinonton published lie in the New
York Times; were we 10 take it up as true,
and pas, o law 10 milk corruption o. corrupt
Witnesses Sweeny was a poor miserable
specimen of degraded humanity. He I'M
derstood the report of evidence was already
in the hands of two or three New York pa
pers, and il would have the effect 10 excite
prejudice against the accused. There must
be victim, and hence the cry Of mad is
raised. There is an absence OF manliness
in such course of proceeding, and extreme
injustice may be done. The accused should
have a fair hearing, and he protested against
the course Of the Commute.
After long debate, the various reports,
recommending, in addition to Gilbert's ex-
pulsion, that Of Edwards, WEIGH and Mat
iison, were ordered TO be printed, and fur
iher consideration Of the subject was post
poned until Wednesday next.
IT. .oro-tS ara s;one1 hv all the mem.