The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1857-02-26

passed into the pocket Of prostitute another n
made no difference AS to the effect
Mr. KElTT, of South Carolina stated that his object
Col Benton said to vndicate the truth Of history
and bring TO the minds of gentlemen the fact OF their
He wished to call the attention Of soma
members TO with which they ought to be familiar
the of the late Mr. Brooksand referred TO the record
TO show that those who vocerous In branding the
select committee star-chamber investigation and de-
manded that the witnesses be heard at the bar of the House
ton of himself and Mr. Brooks last The men,
bers had changed their minds when they said this action
was violation of their rights The only difference in his
opinion between the of last summer and the now
before the House was that the former was case Of assault
and battery and the latter Of plumber In con-
cluson he argued that the House had right to graduate
its rules of evidence according to the character Of the Of
fence.
Mr. COLFAY, of Indiana stated that he but slight
ly acquainted with the member implicated and did not
rise his advocate but to point out why, ahoughhs
would certainly vote to expel member for bribery he
could not vote for Mr. GBERr expulsion on the evidence
submitted, II it had not been impeached He then
proceeded to point out what he as conad
tions between Sweeny and Triplett
Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland, thought that the friends of
the accused doing him. uninentionay great inus-
ce for 1t must 80 to the country that they did not desire
to bring this matter up for consideration II they would
let the House come a vote upon the motion recommit
when that decided the question could be taken upon
the resolution which the gentleman from Pennsylvania
Mr PuRyAHCE had stated that he desired TO Offer Then
after that question had been decided the question would
be upon the resolution reported by the committee and
there not enough Of evidence to justify the adoption
of that resolution the gentleman would stand free every
imputaton; but il there was he would be guilty Rs
hoped vote would now be taken upon the motion re-
commit
Mr. LETCHER Of Virginia. stated that it seemed to him
that they were aborng under Misrepresentation by mis-
application of anaoges He contended that the examine
ton not to be looked upon criminal trial. and
that the rules which governed those trials should gov
the House. The whole point was whether or not the
House. upon the examination which had been had come
to the conclusion from the evidence that these parties had
been guilty of such conduct justified their expulsion II
the proof before the House there need Of re-
committing the subject to the committee with instructions
lie therefore demanded the previous question: which, by
unanimous consent merely considered to apply to the
motion Of the gentleman from New York
Before the question was taken,
Mr. BENNETT, of New York, submitted the printed
statement of Mr. GnBERr which was read.
Mr. GILBERT contends that, whatever power the House
might have to inquire into the motives for which ndivd
ual members "cas their vote" upon the Iowa land bill
none nrusted by the House to this committee They
selected to inquire whether members had entered
into corrupt combinations for the purpose Of passing pre-
venting the passage Of measures before Congress-
Among the points made by Mr.. GILBERT are the fol-
lowing:
"The only two witnesses are Sweeny and Tripet wbs
stand by their confession in the position Of acknowledged
accompces of each Others guilt and who seek connect
cape the consequence of their admitted acts They are
uncorroborated by single Witness or single fact stated by
strengthen their statement by their Of sa
other excite smile were not done for the grave
purpose Of aizng guilty stain upon
been held in slight matters sufficient evdeAco
to establish the guilt Of another, unless corroborad by
some honest Witness fact outside of their test
been themselves is adequate for that
purpose. The allegation of the committee that there Ia
subsanta concurrence Will hereafter be shown to bein
With these observations the testimony of SweeDy is dis
successfully mpeached in his and his
acte Tor truth and yeracty by general reputation and par
be wanting show the House the utter perverson Of hs
testimony by the committee, it will be found by reading
their statement as 70 sweenys character and the evidence
ter good, and would believe him; and SO is always Moth
ing more extraordinary than that any man. however base
find who will believe him he swears to IN
evil story against another But when five Witnesses high
personal character great intelligence and unquesoned
tegrty come from mans home and that his gensr.
character is bad, that his character for truth yeraey
bad o they Ooud believe him Oakland upon cos
examination show that by his former friends benefac
like Justin j. Butterfed late Commissioner Of the Land
fee and others by his partners in business BY those who
Ws Sy .a oa S Of
es .ya ga,so ssss ss.r. sypsss
nothing to justify faith credit any story however
probable ITSELF much less when the story Swes
came and such he tells The committees moreover arc
constrained to confess that he vnctive when provoked
and not over-scrupulous in bis measures of
tRepor, pcge8.
From the that have been mentioned and BY N,
referred to- the committee have derived their charge
That, standing Alone wholly unsupported by anything
mind. But when notified Of their proceedings Mr. Gilbert
appeared before the committee and, under OATH put bis
answer to the deamatory story that answer full
pete, alleges among ether things, that agreement
made with me BY Trpe Sweeney, any other person,
whereby to have did expect have any benefit
from the passage of the resolution knew Of had
the remoest idea of the existence of the writing order
until after it was produced before the committee And in
regard to the Iowa land BILL Il have say have tho
slightest recollection of having had conversation with
Swesny the subject and knoW that told him that
was to have square miles any other quantity Of
land for my vote never stipulated for any quantity Of
or any other bl.' '''@'- "A"
they would not regard him Witness But from that
sision he appeals 10 the better judgment the House, and
claims, that in Of this nature the statement of
Der under oath evidence in his favor Of the highest chas
ter that cannot be overcome but by the testimony of
mpeached witnesses. This he advised the parliamentary
law, and without this wholesome rule member of Congr
would be at the of any scoundre that nes the halls
testimony Of Mr.. WEIGH and Mr. Chase both Of whom
to facts wholly inconsistent with the stories Of Sweeny JUS
tce to himself would require other points in the report
that the defence has already extended beyond the limits
desired This necessity has been imposed upon him by the
irregular and unfair procedure to which he has been sub
ected But without further remark he submits his
the House. II the charge be entertained he demands an
open trial by the House, where nstice will be administered
according to legal evidence, and in legal FORM and where
ms rights as man ana his privileges as member VIII
spected Protesting his innocence in fact and intention
every respect wherewh he stands charged with apology
for the length of these remarks he cheeruy abdes tho
Judgment OF the House."
The question taken and the resolution offered BY
Mr.. BENNETT, of New York, was disagreed toyeas ~
nays 100.
Mr.. PURVIANCE of Pennsylvania, then submitted the
following resolution
Resolced That this House will forthwith proceed with the
trai OF the Hon. WM A. GILBERT, and that the Sergeant